Andrew MacKay: Will the Minister accept that many people who have their purchased homes near to pubs and clubs had a reasonable expectation that licensing hours would not be unduly extended? The hours have been extended in a number of cases, which has caused huge concern. If those people's fears are confirmed and the extensions blight their lives, will the Minister guarantee that it will be possible to appeal and obtain redress against such decisions?

Eric Illsley: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to areas where the licensing law is working very well? In particular, two or three pubs in my constituency that had a very poor records of behaviour have been refused licences under the new legislation. Will he congratulate my local authority on taking those steps?

Order for Second Reading read.

Meg Munn: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I am pleased to be opening the debate on the Bill on behalf of the Government. I know that my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, is disappointed not to be in the House, owing to unavoidable commitments connected with the UK's presidency of the European Union.

John Bercow: He does not care about either.

Meg Munn: The hon. Gentleman answers for me. I ask the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) to be patient, as I will get to those aspects later. If he takes the time to read the one clause, he will find that it is about sexual orientation.
	The Bill is a key element in the Government's work on equality and human rights. It puts in place a new Commission for Equality and Human Rights that will support individuals, employers, service providers and public bodies. We are also examining the root causes of inequality and how they can be tackled through a fundamental review of equality in our society. Furthermore, we are reviewing the legislative framework concerning discrimination with a view to how it should be shaped for the future. The Bill and those reviews should be viewed in the wider context of the Government's manifesto commitment to bring forward a single equality Bill later in this Parliament.

Meg Munn: I hope that hon. Members will permit me to make just a little progress.
	The Government have done more to promote equality and tackle discrimination than any previous Government. We have outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the grounds of sexual orientation, religion and belief, and will do so next year for age. The Government have introduced the groundbreaking duty on public authorities to promote race equality, which has been followed by duties for disability, which are on the statute book, and for gender, which are being introduced by the Bill. We established the Disability Rights Commission. We have continued to extend the rights of gay men and lesbians, with the Civil Partnership Act 2004, in an important addition to which we are introducing powers to protect against discrimination in goods and services.

Eric Forth: You are on your own.

Chris Bryant: Contrary to the mumblings among Conservative Back-Benchers, by which they seem to suggest that equality does not interest them at all, many Labour Members and a few Opposition Members are very grateful to the Government for giving way on the issue of goods and services for gays and lesbians—in particular, because many people in this country are already sick and tired of the fact that their GPs refuse to look after them because they are homosexual. That must surely be wrong, and we are grateful to the Minister for giving way on that issue.

Meg Munn: I should like to make a little progress. I will give way in a short period.
	We are also proud of what we have achieved in the area of human rights. The Government passed the Human Rights Act 1998—a historic step in bringing home the rights of the European convention on human rights and making them part of our domestic law.
	The things that I am listing should not just be seen as combating unfairness, although that is certainly worth doing. Living in a country that values equality and human rights benefits everyone; it helps us to develop a better society. Equality is not a minority pursuit—although it appears to be among Conservative Members. We all have a stake in a successful society. For instance, if everyone is given the chance to participate in economic success on their own account or in a co-operative environment, wealth is created. Our country and our communities need the talents and the energy that each person has to give. Without those talents and energy, particularly if they are held back by bigotry and hatred, we are all diminished.

Meg Munn: The hon. Gentleman raises a point that I shall address a little later when we deal with the gender duty.
	Many people in our society still do not have a fair chance in life. Prejudice and disadvantage continue to blight the prospects of far too many. We live in a world in which there are many identities, cultures and faiths, in which the patterns of family life are changing and in which changing demographic patterns raise important issues about the rights of older people. Those matters are not remote; they touch all our lives.

Meg Munn: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I am very happy to ignore certain sounds from certain Benches. Obviously, we want to make as much progress as we can in moving towards the very important single equality Act, which is a manifesto commitment for this Parliament. I am not in a position to give a great deal more detail at the moment, but I will be saying a little more about the processes as I continue; and on that note, Mr. Speaker, I intend to make some progress.
	Parents want their children to have a fair chance in life, as I said. Looking to the future, young minority ethnic workers will account for more than half of the increase in the working-age population over the next decade. More than two thirds of additional jobs expected to be created over the same period are likely to be filled by women.
	The Government are addressing those profound changes in society in many ways, including through the three elements of our equality and human rights programme. First, the new commission for equality and human rights will be a champion for equality and human rights, using its influence and expertise to deliver real and lasting change. Secondly, there is the equalities review led by Trevor Phillips, who is currently chair of the Commission for Racial Equality. We need better to understand the long term and underlying barriers to opportunity so that we can identify the most effective ways to improve outcomes for individuals. Thirdly, the discrimination law review will develop proposals for a simpler, fairer legal framework while taking full account of the need of employers and service providers.
	The two reviews are part of the essential work that is needed to deliver on our manifesto commitment to bring forward a single equality act in this Parliament. It is essential to get the new commission in place quickly.

Meg Munn: I will give way shortly, but I need first to make a little more progress.
	The commission will reach out to all sections of society, through a duty to consult on its strategic plan. It will be relevant to all—no more pigeon-holing people by one characteristic—underlining the fact that equality is important for us all, not just for particular groups.

Meg Munn: The hon. Gentleman raises the important issue of the commissions' coming together. Even though there are three existing commissions, some areas currently have no institutional support; for example, there is no such support for human rights, sexual orientation, religion and belief, or age. Moreover, and as I just pointed out, white working-class boys do not necessarily figure so far as the existing commissions are concerned. This is a question of equality, which is why we are bringing the commissions together. The overall budget will increase—[Interruption.] It will increase because we are taking on additional responsibilities, which we believe is the right thing to do. Our consultations show that this is the correct way to proceed.

Meg Munn: I am enjoying this more than I expected to; the Conservatives' arguments are indeed interesting. The Bill's application to public authorities is a matter of detail and if the hon. Gentleman, to whom I was extraordinarily polite, can hold on to his question, we can consider it a little later.
	I now turn to the detail of the Bill. It comes to this House following thorough scrutiny in the other place. During that process, the Government showed that they were willing to listen to proposals for improving the Bill, and to amend it accordingly. I have already mentioned a key example—the inclusion of a new part 3, which provides a power to make regulations prohibiting discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. Other important improvements include strengthening the independence of the new commission; integrating more closely the commission's duties and functions in relation to disabled people with its duties and functions in relation to other groups; and bringing provisions in part 2 on religion and belief more closely into line with existing legislation. Part 1 establishes the Commission for Equality and Human Rights and defines its purposes and functions, including its enforcement powers. It will build on the achievements of the Commission for Racial Equality, the Disability Rights Commission and the Equal Opportunities Commission, which have worked tirelessly to keep equality issues high on the policy agenda. Through their work, they have made real and practical differences to people' lives.

David Davies: I thank the hon. Lady. Whatever else we may say, she has certainly been generous with her time. Will she acknowledge that one of the failings of the Commission for Racial Equality has been its presumption that the only people in our society who are racist are white? Will the successor body to the CRE take action to eradicate the racism and prejudice that are clearly present among the black, Asian and Muslim communities, and also acknowledge that white people are occasionally the victims of that racism?

Meg Munn: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. It is important to deal with hate crime, wherever it occurs. Hate crimes from which people with disabilities suffer were debated in the other place, and we must tackle them, too. The Bill does not seek to do everything in relation to equality—it is a further step along the road. The discrimination law review, on which a Green Paper will be introduced early next year, will enable us to consult much more widely and begin to consider all the issues in detail with a view to introducing a single equality Bill to tackle a range of issues and bring all our discrimination law into one place, which will make it much simpler to access for individuals, organisations, companies and public authorities.
	The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) has raised the issue of harassment. Hon. Members know that the one point on which the Government were defeated in the other place involved an amendment that removed harassment on grounds of religion or belief from part 2, the effect of which is that the Bill no longer prohibits harassment on the grounds of religion or belief in the exercise of public functions, housing or education.
	We have considered very carefully how to respond to the debates in the other place and that vote. We remain convinced that it is important to act against harassment on the grounds of a person's religion or belief, particularly in the provision of public functions and the other areas that I have mentioned. We are committed to the development of sensible proposals to combat harassment in its different manifestations across the range of equality strands. However, the strength of feeling in the other place, the current work of the discrimination law review in fundamentally examining issues of inequality and discrimination, and the subsequent opportunity to reintroduce the provision before Parliament in a single equality Bill have persuaded us not to seek to re-introduce those provisions in this House at this time. We will continue to consider the detail as part of the discrimination law review before making further proposals. I hope that the House will join me in recognising the principle that it is important to act against harassment on grounds of religion and belief, as many people do not feel that the current arrangements adequately protect them.

Eleanor Laing: I understand why the hon. Gentleman is standing up for London, and I am sure that that matter will be discussed at a later stage. If I were the Minister, I might be able to give him an answer on that point, but sadly I am not.
	The Government will have to go a lot further to justify the proposed increases in the cost of the new body. This is all taxpayers' money, and it is the Government's duty, when spending it, to consider that, if that pot of money were not spent on the administration of the new commission, it could be spent on education and training, for example, which would give more opportunities to all kinds of people in all parts of the country. I am sure that we shall return to the issue of costs in our further consideration of the Bill, and I hope that the Minister and her colleagues in the Treasury will give the matter serious consideration.
	The rules and regulations imposed by the Bill must not put too many burdens on business, especially on small businesses that do not have human resources departments to deal with them. I cannot emphasise this point too strongly. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire rightly said, it is important that the new body—and all that it stands for—commands respect. If the new provisions are seen to be disproportionately bureaucratic and overbearing, all that will happen is that employers will find an excuse not to employ women, disabled people, people from ethnic minorities or gay people in the first place. Reasonable employers who have an unreasonable fear of expensive litigation will find a way round it. They will not risk having a case brought against them, so the Bill's good intentions will backfire. I do not want that to happen, so the balance must be kept reasonable.
	Thirdly, the new provisions must not be seen to interfere in people's lives where such interference is unnecessary. I am pleased that my noble Friends have succeeded in removing the clause relating to harassment on grounds of religion or belief. We all want to see an end to such harassment. No one wants to see harassment on any grounds whatsoever, but the end that the Government rightly sought to achieve will not be achieved by enacting overbearing legislation that would have had unintended consequences.
	In all that we do in considering the Bill, it is vital that we preserve the distinctiveness of traditional groups, organisations and institutions of any religion or belief from any part of the country, representing any sector of our society. That distinctiveness is absolutely essential. There was a danger that that might have been lost under the Bill as originally drafted. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire said a few moments ago, displaying a subtle and peaceful symbol of a religion, be it a necklace with a cross or a seven-branch candlestick at the back of a room, or playing traditional Indian music at a gathering, must not be allowed to be interpreted as causing offence to someone of another religion. That is going too far and would make the legislation backfire. So I am pleased to hear from the Minister that the Government do not intend to re-introduce the relevant clause to the Bill, but I am also pleased that the matter will be considered at greater length under the review, because it is a complex matter that deserves deeper consideration.

Eleanor Laing: No, I do not mean suffragettes; I mean the suffragists. They would not have succeeded had it not been for the changing economic circumstances after the first world war. Equality legislation will not succeed now unless it is recognised that there is a good economic case for its success, which there is.
	I hope that today's debate will open a few eyes and that the Minister will seriously consider those four concerns as the Bill progresses: costs, burdens on business, unwarranted interference in everyday lives and overplayed and unnecessary political correctness. I will raise them again in Committee.
	Equality is a bit of a misnomer for what we are considering today, or at least it is shorthand for a much wider issue. We all want to see equality of opportunity for everyone, but the essence of a free society is that people are not equal because each individual is different from every other individual, and we much respect that diversity.Sir Patrick Cormack rose—

Angela Eagle: I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who spoke from the Conservative Front Bench, and, as I often do in such debates, I wish her well in dealing with her recalcitrant Back-Bench colleagues. It is good to know that at least some parts of the Conservative party understand the importance of the anti-discrimination agenda. Unfortunately, not all Conservative Members believe that discrimination is wrong and their behaviour at the start of the debate was extraordinary. That saddened me, as I had thought that progress had been made when we last debated the Second Reading of this very Bill in the dying days of the previous Parliament. On that occasion, the chorus of, how shall I call it, antediluvian chuntering and reactionary chatter on the Conservative Back Benches was absent, and it is a great pity that that element has turned up today.
	Conservative Front Benchers should be supported in their attempts to change the views of their Back-Bench colleagues, but on the basis of today's evidence, the hon. Member for Epping Forest has a long way to go. I wish her well—[Interruption.] She supports the Bill and Labour Members welcome that. That said, she wants to starve the new commission for equality and human rights of the funds necessary for it to do its job properly, especially in respect of establishing new strands of work to enshrine equality in terms of human rights, age, sexual orientation and religious belief. That task would be a challenge for any new body and I certainly believe that the suggested funding allocation is the minimum necessary to ensure that the single commission gets off to a good start.
	The Bill is most welcome and it has improved since its introduction in the dying days of the last Parliament—not only as a result of events in the other place, but when the Government realised that they could extend the scope of the Bill in certain necessary respects. The Bill sets up a new commission for equality and human rights to take forward equality work and enforce those new rights.
	It is argued that extending equality protection to the majority of citizens in this country somehow sets the scene for us all to be the same, but the Bill is about protecting people from the adverse effects of overt discrimination and extending those rights from the three strands covered by the previous Labour Government to include two new strands. That is to be welcomed. It is not about uniformity or creating some false equality. It is about giving positive protection to sections of our citizenry who have never been afforded it and who have faced overt discrimination day-in, day-out of a type that has been outlawed in terms of other groups of people. Two obvious examples of that is, first, the extension of protection against discrimination in the supply of goods and services to people on grounds of their religious belief and, secondly, in respect of sexual orientation. The latter category was included as a result of the Government's decision in the other place.
	In reality, that means something very simple: once this legislation is enacted, it will be illegal for people to be denied a hotel room, or access to a service such as hiring a car, simply on the grounds of their religious belief or sexual orientation. That has surely got to be right, and I do not see how any Member of this House could possibly object to it.

Angela Eagle: This legislation is a welcome patch job, which will be put right by the single equality Bill, which I hope will be introduced soon and will add goods and services protection across legislation more coherently than at present.
	The hon. Gentleman will know if he reads his history that current equality legislation is a patchwork of provisions that has been created in piecemeal fashion over the years. That is why we need the process of consolidation and entrenchment that the single equality Bill will give us when it is finally enacted. Protections will then be enshrined in legislation, as they should be. However, I welcome the decision to protect immediately against discrimination access to goods and services on the grounds of sexual orientation, as otherwise it could take two years or more for such protection to be offered. This measure is entirely appropriate in the circumstances.

Angela Eagle: I have a great deal of respect for Lady Thatcher, but I fear I cannot include her in my list as she did little for women's equality, except for leading by example—I give her that. In the 18 years that the Conservatives were in power, our anti-discrimination legislation was weakened and ignored and no progress was made. A Labour Government set up anti-discrimination legislation in the 1970s and we had to wait for the return of a Labour Government to take it forward.
	As we see, the hon. Member for Epping Forest, who sits on the Conservative Front Bench, has a difficult job persuading some of her recalcitrant Back Benchers that they should even support the Bill. However, she does have a handbag and I wish her luck. Perhaps she needs to put a couple of bricks in it to persuade them of the way forward.
	The Bill includes a public duty to promote gender equality, which will help to tackle the issues today, the 30th anniversary year of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. That duty will help us to deal with the pay gap problem. Women working full-time still earn, on average, 18 per cent. less than men, so a woman earns 82p for every £1 that a man earns. That is considerably better than in the 1970s; but, clearly, we need to reform and remould our protective legislation to go the extra mile and close that gap still further.
	The position of women who work part-time is particularly difficult because, on average, they earn 41 per cent. less than full-time male workers. As many Labour Members who have been campaigning on pensions know, only 15 per cent. of women currently qualify for the basic state pension in their own right, essentially because of the way that the pension system has been moulded—by Beveridge, originally—on a single-male-earner model, which simply does not reflect the shape of society or the working lives of many women.
	The pay gap for ethnic minorities is extremely similar. It is clear that we are dealing with institutionalised discrimination. I do not mean, however, that loads of people want deliberately to discriminate against different groups in our society, although there are some such people, and they need to be dealt with harshly.

Angela Eagle: No. I am sorry, but there is a time limit, and I have very little time left. The hon. Gentleman will have to make his own speech.
	The important thing is that we can close the pay gap by providing protection for those who are discriminated against. The positive duty to promote gender equality is extremely important, and it is obvious that that requirement will need to be extended. I am looking forward to the outcome of the findings of the Women and Work Commission because I want to see what it says about pay audits and to find out how we can close the pay gap. We need compulsory pay audits and pay plans to ensure that we can end pay discrimination systematically over a period.
	The Low Pay Commission should be given a specific remit to narrow the gender pay gap as part of its deliberations on the national minimum wage. I would support more training and development opportunities, particularly for women who work part-time. We should simplify our equal pay legislation so that it is more user-friendly. I welcome the Bill as the starter to the main course that will put the final legal structure in place—the single equality Act that is yet to come. Such an Act would deal with some of the problems of our existing anti-discrimination law, which is complex, piecemeal, sometimes mutually inconsistent, under-inclusive and needs updating.
	In total, 30 Acts of Parliament, 11 codes of practice, 38 statutory instruments and 12 EU directives have a bearing on our anti-discrimination legislation. With the best will in the world and with the best employers and employees in the world, it is difficult to untangle the plate of spaghetti that that leaves. We need to ensure that we simplify, so that those who want to ensure that they do not discriminate can follow the law more easily.
	I look forward to the single equality Bill and to my hon. Friend the Minister publishing the results of discrimination law review. I should like all strands of our anti-discrimination legislation to be consolidated to make it more proactive, more preventive, more effective and simpler for everyone to understand. I look forward to speaking on the Second Reading of the yet to be announced single equality Bill, which is a manifesto commitment, and welcoming it as the final piece in the jigsaw that will ensure that everyone has the right to protection from discrimination simply on the grounds of skin colour, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, age or disability. We can then be proud of what the Labour Government have done, following in the footsteps of our great pioneers, such as Barbara Castle. I look forward to that time. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on introducing the Bill. I wish it a safe and speedy passage.

Sandra Gidley: Those of us who are regular attendees at questions to the Minister for Women are well aware of the statistics cited by the hon. Gentleman. Although the full-time pay gap has narrowed since the introduction of the Equal Pay Act 1970, the big problem that must be addressed is the fact that the part-time pay gap has narrowed little.
	I welcome the Government's attitude towards the Bill and the spirit in which they have worked with all the stakeholders and agencies involved. Talking to people in preparation for the debate has been illuminating because most of the organisations seem fairly happy with what has been achieved so far. That makes it a challenge for Opposition Members to come up with major points of difference—[Interruption.] There are always some luddites in the House who do not want any change, but the Front Benches of all three parties are as one on the Bill. I hope that that spirit is allowed to prevail in Committee.
	It is worth paying tribute to some of the changes that the Government allowed during the passage of the Bill through the other place. They accepted an amendment to outlaw discrimination in goods, facilities and services on the grounds of sexual orientation, and that is very welcome. However, the issue of transgender people has been raised today, and it seems inappropriate to kick that into the long grass. It would be more useful to address that during the passage of the Bill.
	The Lords also improved the Bill so that the elimination of harassment is included in the gender duty. However, the Equal Opportunities Commission has raised concern that the interpretation of harassment is worryingly narrow and will leave some without protection under the law. An example of a woman working in a local authority leisure centre who is harassed by a customer has been cited. Her employer clearly has a role to play in doing all it can to prevent and deal with such a problem, but even under the proposed harassment provisions the woman would have no grounds to challenge her employer if she felt that it could have done more to prevent or deal with harassment unless she could prove that the employer would have treated a similar complaint from a male member of staff more favourably or show that it would have taken different action in similar circumstances. It seems an unintended consequence of the Bill that an employer could therefore fail in equal measure to protect its male and female staff but not be held to account for doing so. That clearly needs to be addressed further in Committee.
	Provisions in section 73 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 were missing from the draft Bill, but that has been partially addressed. That power allowed the Equal Opportunities Commission to tackle persistent discrimination, but there is still some way to go, because the Bill has been amended to give the commission for equality and human rights the power to apply for an injunction if it thinks that discrimination is likely to take place. That sounds positive, but in previous cases an early court or tribunal ruling would have been made. The tribunals in particular have built up great expertise in such cases, so by limiting the power to the courts, expertise and familiarity with discrimination law currently found in tribunals could be lost. Will the Minister confirm when she sums up that additional support and training will be provided to the courts that might have to become involved in such decisions? There are also some concerns—I am not sure whether we can be reassured on this today—that discrimination cases could be less successful in the courts.
	I very much welcome the fact that the Secretary of State's direction-making powers have been removed, because many stakeholders feel that that has reasserted the independence of the CEHR from Government interference, and that can only be welcome. However, all is not rosy. Some concerns have been raised and it is worth running through them, because they will form the basis of discussion in Committee.

Sandra Gidley: I want to finish my point. It would be helpful if the Government published a breakdown of how the costs were arrived at, so that Members who want to deal with the arguments made by organisations such as the Commission for Racial Equality can reach an informed opinion about, and decision on, what is a realistic level.
	Concern has also been expressed about the existing agencies' input into the new body. A particular worry is how the CRE's input will be managed, bearing in mind that it will come on board later on. While researching for this debate I discovered the alarming fact that the three main equality bodies have different pay rates. Indeed, I was somewhat horrified to find out that the EOC has the lowest pay rate, which seems somewhat perverse. It would be helpful if the Minister gave guidance on how that issue will be resolved.

Liz Blackman: Like every other speaker, I welcome the Bill. I echo the sentiments expressed by some of my hon. Friends about the proud record of Labour in government on anti-discrimination legislation. The Bill is a logical progression. It offers a point of reference and a facility to challenge multi-strand discrimination. The commission will become a champion of people's rights. I welcome the fact that the commission's remit is significantly extended. I am always loth to repeat what other Members have said in the Chamber. The fact that their comments on the Bill have been so positive is sufficient. Obviously, I want to see the introduction of the single equality Bill sooner rather than later, because it makes sense to tie all the anti-discrimination legislation into a legal framework.
	I am interested in all aspects of the Bill, but this afternoon I shall discuss the provisions relating to disability in general and autistic spectrum disorder or autism in particular. I chair the all-party group on autism, so I take a particular interest in the matter, and I seek an assurance from the Minister that disability discrimination will not be overshadowed by the other strands. I am also concerned that autism is not lost within the concept of disability.
	I followed the Bill's passage through the other place with interest and was extremely pleased that their lordships made some amendments on disability. In the Bill as drafted, disability discrimination and the disabled group were excluded from a general provision on good community relations, which was amended in another place. In the first instance, the disability group was not seen as a community, which was an interesting take on that particular group, but the issue has been resolved.
	The Bill initially proposed that the transition disability commissioner should have a shorter term of office than either the commissioner for equal opportunities or the commissioner for racial equality, but it has now been agreed that parity will be the order of the day.
	Lord Rix raised the absence of a simplified version of the Bill, which should have been produced. I understand that a simplified version of the White Paper was produced, but it was published much later than the full version. I accept that the matter is probably due to an oversight on the part of the Government, but it is extremely important, given that disability is one of the major strands. People with disabilities should have access to the legislation that we are considering on their behalf.
	The disability strand is unique, because the disability committee will be retained for at least five years with delegated powers and a sufficient share of resources to exercise those powers, which is vital to disabled people's confidence.
	The noble Lords also raised the importance of retaining both the learning disabilities action group and the mental health group within the current Disability Rights Commission. Although that is not possible, Baroness Ashton of Upholland suggested that the disability commissioner should pay particular attention to those groups.
	As far as I can see, no Member of the House of Lords mentioned the disability of autism. The DRC has just set up a neurodiversity autistic spectrum advice and action group—a mouthful. It has been set up very late, but is nevertheless welcome. Nobody argued for it to be included in, or at least listened to by, the new commission.
	People with ASDs are not physically disabled and often do not look as though they have a disability. The condition is a developmental disability characterised by an inability or impairment in communication, socialisation and imagination. There is no cure. Some of those affected have learning disabilities and some have mental health problems, but they often fall into the gap between the two in relation to support services. Given that an estimated 0.5 million people have an ASD, it must be treated as a significant and common disability with clear implications for mainstream policy and practice. It is now an exemplar in the disabled children's national service framework. Diagnosis in the young is better than it was, and support for children in pre-school and statutory education is improving.
	However, we have an awfully long way to go to catch up in terms of the transition stage, supported living, employment, and support for carers. Seventy per cent. of carers of children with autism said that they were prevented from returning to work by a lack of appropriate care facilities. Seventy-two per cent. of schools are not satisfied with their teachers' training in autism, and only 6 per cent. of people with an ASD and 12 per cent. of those with high-functioning autism and Asperger's syndrome have full-time paid jobs. According to a report by the National Autistic Society, 40 per cent. of carers were dissatisfied with the support that the person whom they care for received from social services.
	The strand of disability must have recognised within it the specific strand of ASD—a significant and prevalent disability. On Second Reading in the other place, Lord Rix said:
	"I have an overriding concern that the lives of disabled people . . . will be made better by the creation of a Commission for Equality and Human Rights. The new Commission must be even more effective than the Disability Rights Commission is now, transforming the current inequalities into improved life chances".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 June 2005; Vol. 672, c. 1246.]
	He was specifically concerned about those with learning disabilities and mental and physical disabilities. So am I. I need reassurance that people with disabilities will not be marginalised in a much bigger commission, and that those with ASDs will not be marginalised either.

Desmond Swayne: The hon. Lady puts her finger exactly on the point. Religions are working together and rubbing along well without the Bill. Intruding with legislation provides scope for mischief and for zealots.
	The Bill's principle is so broad that the remaining clauses of part 2 properly take every aspect of what one would normally understand to be religious practice and experience out of the measure's scope. So despite its size, clause 44 applies only to a narrow provision of goods and services. That is proper, but I am worried about the structure of the Bill because so many of the exemptions are only potentially temporary.
	For example, clause 49 properly removes educational establishments from the scope of the Bill. Otherwise, it would be permissible for an evangelical Christian to demand access to a madrassa. I suggest that that would be done only to make mischief. Nevertheless, why is that proper exemption fatally weakened by clause 49(3)(a), which gives the Secretary of State the power to "amend or repeal" the provision? I do not believe that it is acceptable for a self-respecting legislature to give the Secretary of State the power to undermine a provision. That is nonsense and I hope that those who serve on the Committee will strike out the paragraph.
	Clause 63 is a Henry VIII clause, which gives the Secretary of State the power to amend any exemption in part 2. Again, that is unacceptable given the sensitivity of the matter and the need for the exemptions.
	I have several questions which I hope will be tackled in the winding-up speech or at least in subsequent correspondence. Clause 44(3)(b) states:
	"A person . . . discriminates against another . . . for the purposes of this Part if A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice . . . which puts persons of B's religion or belief at a disadvantage compared to some or all others".
	Has the Minister taken any constitutional advice, given that clause 77 binds the Crown, on whether such a general principle is compatible with the coronation oath?
	What is the meaning of clause 45(5), which states:
	"For the purposes of subsection (1) it is immaterial whether or not a person charges for the provision of goods, facilities or services"?
	I am sure that it cannot be the case, but the provision appears to suggest that, if I, as the provider of gardening services, for example, were to mow the lawns of the church of my own denomination for free, I would also be required to provide the same service to the local mosque. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain whether that is the case.

Emily Thornberry: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that a proper Christian will understand that one can be gay and be Christian as well? If someone is to close their doors to a gay couple coming to their bed and breakfast, should not the answer simply be that they should be prosecuted, as we should not discriminate against people on the basis of their sexuality?

Diane Abbott: The hon. Gentleman mentioned sincerely held beliefs. The whole House respects sincerely held beliefs. Does he accept that, in the recent past, people sincerely believed that black people were inferior and based their beliefs on biblical text, but this House says that it is wrong to discriminate on grounds of race. However sincerely people believe that homosexuality is repugnant, the House, through the Bill, is saying that it is wrong to discriminate on grounds of sexuality.

Julie Morgan: I am grateful to be called to speak in this important Second Reading debate. I also took part in the Second Reading debate on 5 April in the dying days of the last Parliament before the general election and I recall that the atmosphere was different then. Then, a much more consensual approach was taken by those on the Conservative Back Benches. I have been surprised by the antagonism shown by them today, but I welcome the support of the Conservative Front Benchers.
	I am proud that, after the last Second Reading debate, Labour went into the general election with a commitment to equality and human rights. Changing the law to ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity to fulfil their potential is a slow process and it is obvious that there is still a long way to go. However, I agree with other hon. Members that we have made tremendous progress since Labour came to office in 1997. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) rightly referred to the abolition of the notorious section 28, to which we could add the introduction of civil partnerships, the equalising of the age of consent, new laws on adoption, bans on discrimination in the workplace based on sexuality and the ending of the ban on gay men serving in the armed forces. They all show what progress has been made for lesbians and gay men since 1997. I am very proud that the Labour Government led the way in making those changes.
	In Wales, the Assembly works closely with and funds the Stonewall Forum as part of the duty placed on the National Assembly for Wales in the Government of Wales Act 1998. Under that legislation, the Assembly has to
	"make appropriate arrangements to secure that its functions are exercised with due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people".
	I recall that when that legislation was passed in this Parliament, we were very proud that that duty was placed on the Assembly—and it has made a tremendous difference. The setting up of Stonewall Cymru was a big step in attempting to reduce discrimination and it has achieved a great deal, including working with employers to tackle workplace discrimination. "Counted Out" was the first ever survey of lesbian, gay and bisexual people in Wales. I am very pleased that Wales has been able to lead the way in tackling some of these equality issues.
	Since 1997, the position of women has certainly improved, with greater recognition by all political parties of the need for women to be involved in decision making. All the parties now recognise the need to have more women candidates, although we sometimes disagree on the best way to achieve that. I was pleased to participate in debates on equality and sex discrimination legislation, which was not opposed by any of the Opposition parties. The Welsh Assembly has equal numbers of women and men—the only legislature in the world where that applies, which is something to be very proud of. In some of the professions, women are now overtaking men—there are more women in the medical profession, for example, and more women medical students—but there is still a long way to go.
	Some hon. Members have already referred to the pay gap and even with the Government's best efforts, we have not managed to close it. I too welcome the work of the Women and Work Commission, and I am coming to believe that we shall have to move towards compulsory pay audits if we are to ascertain the exact position, not least because we will need that knowledge in order to reduce the pay gap. Women also continue to suffer from pregnancy discrimination—about 43 per cent. of calls to the Equal Opportunities Commission helpline in Wales are pregnancy and maternity-related. The Government have introduced more maternity rights for women, but pregnancy discrimination continues to exist. It is shocking in this day and age to read articles about how pregnant women still suffer in that respect and I hope that the Bill will help to improve their position.
	I welcome the Bill, which has improved considerably during its passage through the other place. I welcome the fact that there will now be an end to discrimination in the provision of goods and services for lesbians and gay men. As Ben Summerskill, the director of Stonewall, has said:
	"Thankfully, signs saying 'No blacks' or 'No Irish' have become a thing of the past. It's shocking that hotels can still put up signs in 2005 saying 'No gays' and we look forward to the early implementation of the new law".
	The sooner those laws are implemented, the better. One of the most shocking instances of discrimination that I know of was when a woman in Wales was refused a smear test on the basis that she was a lesbian. There was widespread publicity about that—a shocking example of the persistence of discrimination. As hon. Members have already mentioned, councillors in Bromley wanted to use the law as it stands to deny gay couples the chance to celebrate their civil partnerships in the same way that heterosexual couples celebrate their weddings. That must be wrong, and I am glad that the Government are moving to outlaw that.
	I also welcome the two reviews—the equality review and the discrimination law review—that will lead to a new single equality Act. In debates before the election, many of us called for that Act to be introduced before the new commission for equality and human rights was set up. I am glad, however, that the current process has started, and we should now have a good look into the fundamental causes of inequality. I accept the need to set up the commission quickly because of the new anti-discrimination strands—age, sexual orientation and religion—that are being introduced, but it is essential that we move towards a single equality Act as quickly as we can and get rid of all the existing legal anomalies. I understand why the commission is to be set up, but it would have been preferable if the single equality Act had been introduced first. In the circumstances, I hope that we will move towards that as soon as we can.
	I want to make some particular comments about how the Bill will affect Wales. I am glad that there will be a Welsh commissioner and a Welsh committee, and that that committee will be a decision-making committee. I hope that it will have grant-giving, as well as decision-making powers. It is also important that those decisions about grant-giving powers are made at a local level—on the basis of real knowledge about local circumstances. As my noble Friend, Baroness Gale said in the other place:
	"Everything in Wales runs from east to west. There are difficulties when one travels from north to south. If the commission in Wales is to be effective there will need to be a presence not just in Cardiff but also in north Wales and possibly west Wales."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 June 2005; Vol. 672, c. 1282.]
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on the possibility of having regional offices in Wales.
	I also hope that the Welsh Assembly will be involved in the appointment of the commission and the commissioner, and I urge there to be an early appointment of the Welsh commissioner. It is important to recognise the low level of capacity for advice-giving that there is in Wales; there is only one law centre in Wales, so the commissioner must get into post soon to address such issues.
	It is also important that the use of the Welsh language is recognised, and that it is understood to be a cause of discrimination. Welsh-speaking elderly people can go into hospital and be unable to receive services in Welsh. That happened to a relative of mine in Carmarthen. He was suffering from mental health problems, and he was unable to receive a service in his first language.
	The particular geography of Wales needs to be recognised. As Baroness Gale said, it is important that there is a presence in north Wales. The Commission for Racial Equality has an office in north Wales, and it is important that the new commission's representation there is as strong as it is in south Wales.
	The Minister mentioned the relationship between the new commission and the Children's Commissioner for Wales, and there has been some debate about whether children should be specifically mentioned as a separate group. The Children's Commissioner for Wales has now been in post for five years. One of his most important findings is that children do not think that anyone listens to them, and that they do not expect to be heard. I hope that the legislation will address discrimination against children—discrimination on the grounds of age should cover children—and that the new commission will work closely with the Children's Commissioner for Wales.
	I know that the Children's Commissioner is also very concerned about the language we use when we talk about children and young people, and particularly when we talk about antisocial behaviour. He has expressed concern about how the debate on that is conducted, especially here in Westminster. I hope that a code will be worked out for how the commission relates to the Children's Commissioner for Wales.
	The House of Lords is considering a Bill that will establish a commissioner for older people in Wales. That is a new post, and we are told that it is one of the first of its kind in the world. I do not know if that is true, but it is essential that a way is worked out for the commission to relate to the older person's commissioner for Wales, who is likely to be appointed next year.
	The older person's commissioner will have a key role to play in addressing the issue of access to services for older people. We all know that older people are often denied the access to health services that they should have. The commissioner will be important, as that person will speak up for older people, but it is also essential that that person's activities are linked to those of the commission.
	Some staff of existing bodies have expressed concern about what will happen to pay rates when the various bodies are brought together. The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) pointed out that the Equal Opportunities Commission rates of pay are lower than those of the other two commissions. I hope that that issue will be addressed.
	I also support the call for a commissioner to represent the trade unions, because there is a tradition in the existing commission bodies of having a trade union commissioner. The trade unions probably deal with many more cases of inequality than any of the existing commissions.
	I congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill. We have a long way to go to achieve what we would all call an equal society, but this is a step in the right direction. The Bill has been improved enormously in the House of Lords, and I am sure that it will continue to be improved in the House of Commons and that, in the end, we will set up a commission that we are very proud of, and which will work for those people who suffer most from discrimination in this country.

Henry Bellingham: As always, my hon. Friend comes up with an extremely intelligent and sensible suggestion, but surely the debate in Parliament would have more impact if it were to debate a report by the commission. That is something that we can discuss in Committee, although that is not an offer to serve at this stage.
	Clause 28 refers to legal assistance, and subsection (1) enables the commission to give assistance to an individual who is the victim of discrimination or
	"who is or may become party to legal proceedings".
	Will the cost of that assistance come from the commission's budget, or could it be funded by the Legal Services Commission, and what will be the relationship between the two?
	Clauses 36 to 38 refer to dissolution, the transfer of property, rights and liabilities, and to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. What about the existing commissions' ongoing cases? It is important during the transition period that the three commissions are not deterred from launching new actions, and it is equally important that existing legal actions are pursued with the usual professionalism, resources and commitment. What is the Minister's view on that, and can she perhaps suggest that at least those particular points will be taken care of?
	The then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry wrote to several MPs in February, announcing the Government's equalities review, which will run in tandem with the Department of Trade and Industry's discrimination law review. The equalities review will be chaired by Trevor Phillips and will report in 2006 at the earliest. It will review all equality legislation, so is it sensible—a point made well by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry)—to go ahead with the Bill before we see the findings of those reviews? I and my Front-Bench colleagues support the broad outlines of the Bill, but it is vital to get it right in every respect, so it would be sensible to await the findings of the review.

Henry Bellingham: I will not give way. I have only three and a half minutes to go before I must conclude.
	Earlier this year, the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS trust considered banning Bibles from bedside lockers to avoid offending other faiths. Torbay council removed a wooden cross from the wall of a crematorium chapel to cater for everyone in our diverse, multi-faith society. Yes, of course those organisations are acting in good faith, but what concerns me very simply is that, very soon in my judgment, any Christian organisation that receives public money could be told to drop all its religious content or lose public funding. That would be extremely unfortunate and regrettable.
	Certainly, the vast majority of my colleagues in the Conservative party feel very strongly that everyone should be given fair treatment. I feel very strongly that discrimination of any kind is morally wrong. It destroys lives. It can break up families and ruin health. It can destroy wealth, because the most valuable asset of any business is obviously its employees. If they are undervalued, undermined or discriminated against, how can they give of their best? If their lives are falling apart because their home life is a misery, how can they go to work with motivation and commitment?
	We want everyone to be given every possible opportunity to reach maximum fulfilment of their lives, free of any kind of discrimination. We would not necessarily have introduced legislation in the exact form of the Bill if we had won the last election, but I believe that it has many good points, and some weaknesses. If we can address those weaknesses, we might at least have legislation that will meet not only the objectives that the Government have set for it, but the aspirations of the people who will be affected and, very importantly, of those wealth creators without whose wealth and the taxes that they pay we would not have public services in this country.

Sadiq Khan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because it is a good example of the scaremongering in which official Opposition Back Benchers are engaged. He refers to the Civil Partnership Act 2004, which is not about marriage. I suggest that he reads that Act. I should be happy to pass to him correspondence and the Library research paper that explains what that Act is about and what the Bill is about.
	For the first time, the Bill will give our citizens who face discrimination on the grounds of age, sexuality or religion a single body to champion their rights—a single body better placed to tackle double discrimination than its predecessors and better placed to provide businesses and public bodies with a single point of reference for advice and support.
	The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who led for the Opposition, gave four conditions that must be met before she could support the Bill. The first point was the body's cost-effectiveness, but she gave evidence that the body was a good idea. According to her figures, GDP would increase by 3 per cent. if women were allowed to work to the full extent of their abilities. She also made the point that GDP would increase if other minorities contributed to the full. Clearly, this is a classic example of the cost-benefit analysis being satisfied, thus showing that the body makes good sense.

Bob Spink: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan). I congratulate him on his bid for the commission to be based in Tooting. However, I hope that he will carry out his threat and distribute copies of what I have to say in Castle Point because I honestly believe that I speak for the people. British people believe in fair play. We instinctively support measures that prevent people from being treated unfairly, and an equality Bill thus seems perfectly reasonable.
	I accept that the Bill has good intentions. I can support many of its aims, but that said, I wish to make several important points. We are still a Christian country. More than three quarters of people declared in the 2001 census that they considered themselves to be Christians. Our strong Christian heritage is a key part of our charm and strength as a nation. It has engendered our tolerance and our fight for human rights, freedom and democracy that have helped to shape a better world.
	We are not multicultural. Our culture and traditions are British with a Christian basis. That has served us and the rest of the world well over the centuries. Our Christian traditions guide how we relate to fellow men and give us a strong belief in the dignity and worth of every individual human being, regardless of background, race, sex, or who they are. Those values and traditions are sadly missing in some of the cultures that we are being driven to assimilate into our society. I need make no apology for stating that people who come to this country to live should respect our culture and our time-honoured standards.

Bob Spink: Evangelical Christian groups want the freedom to proclaim the gospel wherever they go, and I have no problem with that. Secularist groups cannot bear to be preached at; they find all religion abhorrent—so be it—but how will the commission decide which interests come first? I give way. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) has obviously decided that she does not want to intervene—[Laughter.]

Bob Spink: No, not at the moment, thank you.
	Then there is the clash between homosexual rights and religion. The six main faiths still believe that homosexual practice is sinful. Homosexual rights advocates deny that there is any moral component to homosexuality, and that clash of views is irreconcilable.

Bob Spink: The hon. Member makes his point eloquently, of course. He should wait until we are in Committee to bring forward all those points and to argue his case. His views and mine are as reconcilable as those of homosexual rights activists and the six major religions.

Dawn Butler: rose—

Diane Abbott: rose—

Bob Spink: Clause 28 empowers the proposed new commission to provide legal assistance for an individual case. That will be paid for by our constituents who, frankly, can think of better uses for their hard-earned money than promoting gay rights at the expense of our Christian traditions. Let me make it absolutely clear: this Government Bill will be a recruiting sergeant for nasty fundamentalism and extremist groups.

Bob Spink: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Many Members want to speak in this debate. Some of them may be disappointed, which is the main reason why I am not giving way.
	I am delighted that the Government will not press for the creation of a religious harassment offence, which represented a threat to free speech comparable to that contained in the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill. The Equality Bill outlaws harassment by public authorities. Such harassment is defined as violating a person's dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for a person. None of this sounds very nice and I would not advocate it, but to try to make it illegal is quite another thing. A person may feel that a council has created a hostile environment for him merely by using a church as a polling station. Indeed, this example was suggested by a Minister—Lady Scotland.
	Many local authority-owned places are used for street preaching and the free expression of contentious views on religion, as Lord Lyell, the former Attorney-General, pointed out. He took the view that we need to fear not just court cases, but
	"the much wider risk of what public officials will believe it is their duty to do to restrict free speech and free activity."
	He surely has a point. We all know of stories—we have heard them again today—of politically correct officials banning Christmas and Christmas lights, and withdrawing support for Christian charities. Local authorities may refuse to fund Christian hostels that say grace at meal times because of the threat posed by the harassment clause. Earlier this year, I raised in this House one such case on behalf of the very good people of Thundersley congregational church, in my constituency.
	The simple fact is that there is too much legislation in this place. Few, if any, MPs were asked for this Bill during the last election, and there was a good reason why. We have better things to do with our time in this House—things that people actually want and need, and which will help to develop a better and more tolerant society that respects human rights and individual freedoms. The Bill as drafted could boost extremist groups. It could drive society against sensible and good human rights, and against the respect for the individual and the tolerance that we broadly enjoy now by common consent, as a result of our traditions and Christian heritage. Let us not put all that at risk through the badly thought-out clauses in this rambling and patchwork Bill, which is steeped in "PC" and will become a charter for lawyers, even though it is based on some good intentions and has some good parts.

Diane Abbott: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Judy Mallaber: May I make some progress first?
	As I said in my speech during that debate, we argued for those things because
	"promoting the equality agenda has helped to build bridges across community divides."
	That radical agenda was put forward in the Good Friday agreement because the communities in Northern Ireland realised that it could tackle division, discrimination and prejudice. As I also said then:
	"These issues are not the stuff of drama; they are about social inclusion, the consent of the excluded and putting justice and fairness at the heart of government."—[Official Report, 27 July 1998; Vol. 317, c.103–4.]
	Interestingly, we in this country are only just beginning to catch up with the radical legislation that was introduced in Northern Ireland at a time when many things were going on there, and people were seeking to reach agreement. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 placed a statutory obligation on public authorities to promote equality of opportunity between persons of different religious belief, political opinion, racial group, age, marital status or sexual orientation; between men and women generally; between persons with a disability and persons without; and between persons with dependants and persons without. That was at a time when Northern Ireland was trying to deal with huge political problems, but people thought that it was important to tackle equality and discrimination issues to help to heal the divisions in that society. We are only just catching up with some of those things.
	As has been said, it is the 30th anniversary of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. We have made the greatest advance in gender equality and achieved the biggest change in sex equality laws in the 30 years since by introducing the duty to promote gender equality. The hon. Member for Epping Forest asked how far we have advanced in those 30 years, and I agree that in many ways it is frustrating that little has changed but, on the other hand, a great deal has happened. Thirty years ago, someone who argued for a minimum wage for the lowest paid, particularly women, and for a family-and-work balance so that people could combine employment responsibilities with their home life was regarded not as barmy—it was not just a matter of political correctness—but as completely mad. Society has changed, and we now realise the importance of such policies. We understand the importance of child care, which was difficult to argue for 30 years ago.

Judy Mallaber: I agree with my hon. Friend, who puts the case very well.
	The measure affects and helps everyone—it is not a Bill for just one particular group. Division, jealousies, inequalities and prejudice lead to tensions and conflict in society, prevent us from harnessing the talents and potential of all those living in our communities, and mean that we do not use their skills in society or in the economy. Hon. Members have already mentioned last week's excellent debate, which demonstrated that the maximising of women's skills is essential to the health and expansion of the UK economy.
	When I tentatively and nervously tabled amendments to a sensitive Northern Ireland Bill that was enacted some years ago, I did so because my own union, Unison, had taken the lead as the first organisation to support the Good Friday agreement. It drew membership from both sides of the sectarian divide, and I saw from how it dealt with those members on a daily basis how important it was to promote equality if we were to try to heal the divisions in society.
	To develop my intervention on my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the way in which my union operated in those circumstances leads me to argue strongly for continued representation on the new commission by the TUC and the employers' side. The TUC has two representatives on the Equal Opportunities Commission: one on the CRE and another on the Disability Rights Commission. There is automatic union representation on similar commissions in Ireland and South Africa, and it is important that we maintain such representation here.
	One reason for doing so came home to me vividly when the hon. Member for Epping Forest said that employers must not be subject to legislation that was too onerous or expensive. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) pointed out that the Bill is designed specifically to limit recourse to the law, and lays strong emphasis on conciliation and the provision of advice and information. The whole aim is to try to avoid recourse to the law. A large range of employment relations cases will arise, and the experience that both sides of industry have gained in dealing with employees and union members in their home and work life will be invaluable in mediation and conciliation. We should seek to use that experience to meet the legitimate concerns of the hon. Member for Epping Forest and other Opposition Members. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), will consider seriously the proposal to continue the tradition of representation from both sides of industry on the commission.
	I would like to highlight a couple of concerns expressed by the Equal Opportunities Commission. First, will the gender duty allow public sector bodies to take the action that we hope they will take? There is a fear, as has been said, that private functions of public bodies—namely, employment—are not covered by that duty. Public bodies will not necessarily be able to take action to encourage private contractors to tackle discrimination, but it is important that they should do so. Last year, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, of which I am a member, produced a report entitled "Jobs for the girls: The effect of occupational segregation on the gender pay gap". It highlighted the tendency of men and women to work in different occupations, which is a major factor in the gender pay gap, as the evidence that we received demonstrated. I am sure that that will be confirmed by the Women and Work Commission. We need to tackle that problem.
	The lack of skills that results from our failure to harness people's abilities so that they do not undertake different kinds of work has a damaging and limiting effect on the economy. It is important that public sector bodies with a duty to promote equality should be able to do so in their own work force, in other bodies with which they work and in the contracts for which they are responsible. The lack of clarity may not be intentional, but the Equal Opportunities Commission is uncertain about exactly what is covered. I am not a lawyer, so I am not sure about the exact terms that are causing concern, but I hope that the problem can be addressed.
	Secondly, as has been said, we need to make sure that educational institutions are covered. They are not covered by the gender equality-specific duties on public bodies, so they do not have the full range of duties to take the action that we hope they will take. Last year, the Select Committee took evidence from the Equal Opportunities Commission for its report. The commission's surveys of year 10 pupils—14 to 15-year-olds, for people who cannot remember which year group is which—showed that
	"girls were more likely than boys to think that jobs such as plumbing could be done equally well by both sexes; 80 per cent. of girls were willing to consider a non-traditional job".
	Many boys, too, are prepared to consider a non-traditional job, but that open-mindedness disappears as children grow older. Witnesses from the Learning and Skills Council suggested that
	"while younger pupils were willing to consider new ideas, by the age of 16 they were 'thinking about relationships, thinking about [their] own identity, thinking about the views of [their] peers, thinking about the views of [their] parents'".
	That was brought home to me very strongly when I visited a local secondary school that is doing excellent work to promote vocational education. It makes sure that the academic kids do the vocational education and that students on the vocational pathway have the basic academic skills that employers need. The school is doing some imaginative work—perhaps I should not say so, but students are even doing repairs for the school as part of their vocational work. They are also learning brick laying and many other skills. The headmaster told me that one girl was keen to take the construction course because her dad was a builder. She had been around construction and building, but her father did not think they were appropriate for her. The pressures on girls to leave vocations that they would like to follow and the pressure that push boys away from vocations that they would like to pursue are the starting point of the occupational segregation that limits opportunities and leads to the equal pay gap. We have already heard how much the British economy could benefit if we harnessed the skills and opportunities of all those people. Our learning institutions must tackle that problem.

Paul Burstow: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall endeavour to assist colleagues, to ensure that as many as possible get the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. One of the striking features of this debate compared to the one on the earlier version of the Bill—I read that debate—is the slight change in tone. The sounds off during this debate have been somewhat different from the debate before the election. That is interesting for what it says about where parties stand.
	I make no criticism of the speech from the official Opposition Front Bench. That was a sound position, but a number of speeches from Back-Bench Conservative Members suggested that legislation and a commission were not the answer. My question to those who hold that view is, what is the alternative that ought to be proposed and argued for? I did not hear, particularly from the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), a cogent argument for an alternative way forward, other than some description of organic change. We have perhaps been experimenting in real time with organic change on a range of equality issues that the Bill will address, and we have seen that discrimination has continued to be corrosive and to harm the interests of many in this country. That is why I strongly support the Bill.

Paul Burstow: Absolutely, and much clearer about being tolerant. That was omitted on this occasion. I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments about the normal character and demeanour of the hon. Member for Castle Point. I am sorry he is not in his place to hear me—[hon. members: "He is."] Ah! He moved. He will have heard the point made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), and I echo much of what he said.
	Much in the Bill is long overdue. There are three aspects that I shall touch on, all of which relate to age equality and age discrimination issues. First, the commission will be charged with promoting age equality and tackling age discrimination. Older people can face multiple discrimination. For example, evidence shows that older women are considerably poorer than older men, and the oldest are the poorest of all. On average, women's income in retirement is just 57 per cent. of men's, due in part to their greater caring responsibilities for children and other family members throughout their adult lives. As others have observed, this pensions gap is the product of a mid-20th century set of assumptions about family structures that no longer apply. No wonder that, as a consequence of those assumptions, a quarter of older single women live in poverty.
	The recent recommendation by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence—NICE—concerning the availability of disease-modifying drugs, such as Arecept for the treatment of dementia, points to ageist assumptions in the appraisal of drugs.Another example is the way in which benefit system discriminates against older disabled people. At the age of 64, a disabled person can claim disability living allowance, which, with its mobility component, is worth up to £43 a week. However, once the person turns 65, they can no longer claim DLA if they become disabled, and are entitled only to attendance allowance, which is a less generous benefit with no mobility component.
	For those who are old and disabled, the message that seems to be sent by the benefit rules is that an active life ends at 65. That is not the message that the Government want to send, and I hope that through the Bill we can explore ways of ensuring that such a message is no longer sent by the apparent divide in our benefits system when a person reaches the age of 65.
	Age discrimination compounds other forms of discrimination. The challenge for the new commission will be to work across the various equality strands, tackling real-life discrimination in the round, rather than trying to shoe-horn people into one category or another. I was heartened by what the Minister said in opening the debate. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) that a committee-based structure that maintains the existing silo approach to equality is not the right way forward. Although I understand the concerns expressed by some about a possible loss of focus on some of the work of the existing commissions, I strongly believe that a single commission will bring benefits to everyone.
	That brings me to my second point. The commission will realise its full potential only if all equality strands enjoy parity under the law. I very much agree with the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) about the need not to level down, but to level up in that respect. Although the Government have updated and developed the protection in law for every other strand of discrimination, they have left age discrimination behind. The best they can do is the minimum they must do: implement the EU equal rights directive in respect of employment. Even there the protection against age discrimination in employment is weaker than for any other form of discrimination in the workplace.
	The law should protect older people against discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services. The Lords have already extended the law to include sexual orientation, albeit through regulations, as we heard. The positive duty on public authorities should apply to all strands. It has already been widened in the Lords to include gender. It should be widened to include age as well, as it does in Northern Ireland. Such a positive duty also exists in Scotland and Wales, so why are older people in England treated less favourably?
	The impression given is that in England the elderly are second-class citizens, compared with their neighbours. Why must we wait for the conclusions of the law review? Why can we not find ways through the Bill to provide the means—the paving stones—to give older people equivalent rights in this regard? The danger must surely be that we will end up with a single commission hamstrung by the need to discriminate between the different strands, working within a confusing and complex set of legal protections that result in unequal quality—a hierarchy of equality, as was said earlier, which is enshrined in the Bill in clause 10(4).
	My third and final point relates to the human rights dimension, which is such an important part of the Bill. The Human Rights Act 1998 asserts the equal dignity and worth of each and every one of us, but does that really apply to all of us? The answer is clearly no. Thanks to the way the courts have interpreted the meaning of "public authorities" under section 6 of the Act, when one crosses the threshold of a privately run care home, one enters a twilight zone, where an out of sight, out of mind culture of abuse can become the accepted norm. Care homes are places where human rights can be denied. There is what the British Institute of Human Rights calls a "protection gap", into which older vulnerable people can fall.

Paul Burstow: I am coming on to that point and agree with the hon. Gentleman that the situation is more offensive in those respects.
	When older people are neglected or mistreated in a care home, when medication is used as a chemical straitjacket, when relatives are told that they cannot visit because they ask awkward questions, when a married couple are separated and sent to different care homes against their wishes and when an older person is evicted from a care home, they are rarely seen as human rights issues. Such matters are often seen as poor practice or poor standards—yes; standards matter—but first and foremost, they are violations of a person's human rights, which relates to the rights-based approach discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey. Twice yearly inspections by the Commission for Social Care Inspection are not the answer to violations of older people's rights and dignity. Plans are afoot to introduce an even lighter-touch inspection regime in the future, so the inspection regime will not deliver the protection of human rights.
	If one crosses the threshold of a private care home, the Human Rights Act 1998 does not apply, and a person receiving services from a private body does not benefit from the protection of the 1998 Act, which was a point established in the Leonard Cheshire Foundation case.

David Kidney: The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) consistently speaks up for older people, and I join him in pressing for strong laws to stop discrimination against older people and for a strong commission to enforce those laws.
	I congratulate the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn), on her fine first performance in charge of a Bill at the Dispatch Box and my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), who has spent a very long time campaigning tirelessly and skilfully for a single equality Bill, which draws ever closer.
	Since the Human Rights Act 1998 was enacted, I have been convinced of the need for a single commission, which I envisage bringing to bear great expertise, a wide range of powers and, crucially, an influence that will help us to eradicate discrimination in our society. The Bill brings about that single commission for equality and human rights, and the two reviews will lead to a single equality law. I was also pleased when the Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended in 2003 that the Government create an integrated commission for equality and human rights.
	To my mind, fairness, equal opportunities and dignity are essential values for a successful society, and in those terms measures of success include social cohesion, enterprise, co-operation and wealth creation. We have seen groundbreaking steps in the past: the UK set up the Equal Opportunities Commission in 1975, the Commission for Racial Equality in 1976 and the Disability Rights Commission in 1999—all those achievements occurred under Labour Governments. However, that approach means that some areas of discrimination and some groups of citizens receive attention, while others do not. It has also led to great complexity—reams of Acts of Parliament, statutory instruments, codes of practice, codes of guidance and, more recently, European legislation.
	It is better to have one commission that adopts a holistic approach to equality and human rights issues and one equality law, which will come next, to provide a coherent and understandable single reference point. A commission for equality and human rights will go beyond individual casework. Crucially, it will act strategically to provide advice and information, and it will be capable of conducting inquiries and investigations. It will support test cases, but it will also seek to work by non-judicial means, such as establishing agreements to enforce compliance without going to court. It should stop unlawful behaviour and promote good relations between individual groups.
	To take one obvious area that requires a new, stronger approach, we have had legislation on equal pay since 1970, but the pay gap persists—we heard the figures earlier in the debate. We must take new powers and adopt new approaches to eradicate the pay gap between men and women. The approach is not anti-business, and, indeed, most businesses will welcome a single commission and a single equality law. Earlier, we heard a quote from the CBI, which welcomes the establishment of the single commission. The single commission can help businesses to adopt fair practices in the workplace, avoid tribunal cases and, hopefully, recognise the benefits of a diverse work force.
	The European employment directive requires the introduction of national legislation to eradicate ageism by the end of 2006. It seems that such legislation will be introduced next year, and the powers under the legislation will be given to the commission to enforce the rights of older people to a place at work. Too few companies act like B&Q in volunteering to employ a diverse work force and accepting older people as valuable members of it. The commission will ensure that more employers behave responsibly and experience greater economic success as a result. It will also take responsibility for enforcing the new rights for older people in employment and training, which is why Age Concern warmly welcomes the Bill.
	Age discrimination does not relate only to older people, because, as the Minister said earlier, children, too, may be subject to age discrimination. Children do not have votes or political organisations such as political parties, trade unions and the CBI to represent them, so it is particularly important that Parliament has regard to their rights and needs—for example, the need for protection. It is arguable that the Bill provides implicit coverage of issues relating to children and young persons, but the coverage is certainly not explicit. For example, clause 9(2)(a) defines human rights as specifically including rights under the European convention on human rights, but only in subsection (b) does it say that the commission can also exercise its functions in respect of "other human rights". On Third Reading in the other place, Baroness Ashton said that the phrase "other human rights" would include rights under the UN convention on the rights of the child, which this country signed up to in 1991.
	Clause 10 defines groups or classes of persons who share a common attribute. The definition could include a group defined by age such as children and young persons under the age of 18. That could be used to challenge measures that are having a particularly adverse effect on children and young persons, thus arguably discriminating against them because they are children.
	Perhaps children's and young persons' rights will be covered by the Bill and the commission will help our country to become more child-friendly, tolerant and inclusive. However, children do not get a fair deal out of the existing laws and commissions. According to the Children's Rights Alliance for England, an examination of the most recent annual reports of the existing equality bodies shows that babies, children and young persons feature very little in their work as people in their own right, despite comprising one fifth of the population. The Minister could argue that children are implicitly covered in the legislation for each of those bodies, yet in practice their work shows that children's and young persons' equality issues are largely overlooked.
	Is it not therefore better to make it clear in the Bill that children and young persons will have their rights under the UN convention on the rights of the child enforced and that they will be a group having the benefits of the commission's work? An additional benefit of that approach is that we can clarify in law the respective roles of the commission and the various children's commissioners around the United Kingdom. Some of those commissioners, like the commission, have rights and abilities to give information and advice, to carry out research, to carry out education and training, to take up individual cases, to make assessments and to carry out investigations. There is clearly some overlap between their rights and those of the commission. The Minister says that a memorandum of understanding will sort out how they relate to each other, but those rights and that interaction can be resolved in an Act of Parliament.
	We have already had great successes in children's issues during my time in Parliament, with the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, the "Every child matters" agenda, and the Children Act 2004. There has been good progress so far; now, let us get the Bill right to augment the good work that has been done. We have made progress from the Human Rights Act 1998 through consultation, the White Paper and now this Bill, with more to come—the two reviews and the single equality law. We are promoting a fairer, more inclusive Britain. A strong, independent commission will challenge discrimination across society and for the first time promote human rights. It will be a champion of diversity, and as such a welcome addition to the architecture of a modern nation determined to harness the talents of all our citizens.

David Burrowes: I am grateful to follow the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), who made some considered and detailed remarks.
	The Bill is no doubt very well intentioned. I certainly wish to sign up to the aspirations of clause 3 in the respect for human rights, dignity and worth of individuals and equal opportunities and mutual respect that it seeks to uphold and promote. I am pleased that the Government have said that they do not intend to put the original religious harassment provisions back into the Bill.
	I pay tribute to the work of those in the other place, particularly Baroness O'Cathain, whose efforts exposed the loose drafting of the original Bill, which could have been used to try to outlaw all kinds of expressions of legitimate religious faith.
	Other issues of religious liberty are at stake in the Bill and need to be considered. I wish particularly to deal with the detail of its implementation. Part 3 is entitled, "Discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation". One would certainly wish to sign up to the general principle of wanting to avoid discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. However, I am concerned that proper protections should be in place as regards the implementation of that part of the Bill. The amendments that the Government accepted in the other place at least countenanced the possibility of religious protections. Clause 80(3)(e) provides for the possibility of regulations under part 2 but does not require them. I respectfully suggest that that requires careful consideration, and indeed amendment, in Committee.
	Without clauses 56 to 59, the religious discrimination provisions of the Bill would outlaw many ordinary legitimate activities of religious groups. In the same way, without specific religious protections the provisions on sexual orientation discrimination could have the same effect. I am concerned that those groups should be free to uphold their doctrinal beliefs and to retain the integrity of their religious ethos and their freedom of association.

David Burrowes: With respect, that is not greatly relevant to the Bill. The issue is not what one individual thinks of another but the activities of some churches, which are defined by a statement of faith and their ethos. They legitimately carry out their activities and determine membership on the basis of their statement of faith and ethos. They are concerned that, without proper protections, the Bill could proscribe their activities.
	Let me move on to a separate point that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) helpfully raised—Baroness O'Cathain raised it in another place—about the commission's power to back a legal action brought by an individual, and the use of its powers in judicial review, investigation and enforcement. It is important that we have a proper approach and that we recognise that legal action over, for example, religious liberty may mean that, on one side, we have the substantial financial and legal resources of the commission and, on the other, a defendant with limited resources who may be disadvantaged. There could be proceedings against a church or religious charity that would be left struggling to find the money to pay for lawyers. That inequality of resources could result in a miscarriage of justice.
	In the other place, the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs responded by effectively saying that bad cases could never succeed. She shows a great deal of faith in the system—I suppose that she would, given that she is an Under-Secretary in the Department for Constitutional Affairs—but perhaps, after 11 years as a solicitor, I can be a little more sceptical about the system and its practical effects. Without proper resources and proper advice, many a litigant's claim would be less likely to succeed.
	The commission's intervention in an individual legal action could turn it into a David-and-Goliath battle. Ironically, the human rights legislation needs to be carefully examined to ascertain whether the equality-of-arms principle is fulfilled in the instance that we are considering. I hope that the Government will reconsider, especially about some form of assistance for those on the receiving end of legal actions that the commission back. Perhaps assistance should be strictly limited to non-profit-making organisations or, indeed, means-tested.
	The Under-Secretary in the other place sought to allay fears about proper assistance for representation by relying on the Access to Justice Act 1999, which provides scope for assistance when public funding is not normally available. However, in practice, that is an exceptional route to follow. It is not often allowed by the Legal Services Commission. I respectfully suggest that the Government should consider explicit provision for legal assistance and funding for those who are on the receiving end of legal action by the commission.

Vera Baird: If I may partially exclude the previous speaker, some extraordinarily reactionary speeches have been made from the deep, dark backwoods of the Tory Benches. Sometimes, I felt like Captain Kirk looking out from the Starship Enterprise at a newly discovered planet and saying, "There's life there, Scotty, but not as we know it."
	I welcome the advent of the commission and the vision that underpins the Bill. Clearly, the commission's purpose is to drive forward all equalities and human rights so that they are embedded in our culture, the concrete of our society and the matrix of our lives. All sensible people should welcome that and the Government are to be commended. If there are any excessive notes of bureaucracy, as some have suggested, they will be tackled in Committee.
	Apart from decency, there is an important business case for the quest for equality, especially in the workplace. Without equality, we will not be as productive as we could be. Productivity requires everybody's talents to be harnessed to the full. That requires no discrimination against any sector or individual to limit that universal potential.
	Some Conservative Members have described the Bill as dealing with a marginal issue or marginal people. By 2010, 80 per cent. of the work force will be in one or other of the strands that the commission covers. That means that only 20 per cent. of the work force will be white, male, able bodied and under 45—and they will not be under 45 for long. It is extraordinary that such a huge chunk of the population has had no protection until today. We are considering a big issue, not one about margins.
	The subject is not only large and important but complex. Inequality is not as simple as we believed in the first place. Women who are single pensioners, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, disabled or lone parents are far more likely to be poor and excluded than men in those categories, whereas women in some industries, for example, the law, probably have equality with men these days. That shows the need for a much more complex approach to overcoming discrimination. It is not simply about gender.
	From another angle, a black older woman often would not know why she had not got a job, simply that she had been discriminated against. She would not know whether the reason was race, age or gender and she should be able to get support from one organisation that understands those complexities and also takes on human rights, which are integral to all the issues.
	Let us consider domestic abuse. It is mainly against women, so there is a gender element, but it is a deep violation of an individual's human rights. Children's rights and forced marriage also show that there is a big overlap between equalities and human rights generally. It is therefore key that the commission is united and key that human rights are involved. Again, I congratulate the Government on the Bill.
	I have some medium-sized criticisms of the otherwise pearlescent perfection of the commission but I can deal with them quickly because others have mentioned them. Before I discuss them, let me make one point for the Opposition and the media who talk about the Government as if they were perpetually leading an onslaught against human rights, civil liberties, equalities and freedoms. I ask them to examine the advance that the Bill will make. The Human Rights Act 1998 made the initial change so that human rights could be enforced here without having to go through our multi-tiered court system and off to Strasbourg. That means that human rights more deeply imbue our law and awareness than they would have done if the only way to enforce them continued to be a wildly expensive, long-term process with an occasional case reaching a remote court in Strasbourg. The Government accepted that they should surround themselves with those value-based guidelines in a strong form while they struggled—with terrorism today and who knows what tomorrow. They wrestle now with their duty simultaneously to protect the article 2 right to life of their citizens, free from threat, and the article 5 rights of the people who appear to pose the threat. The Government brought those rights home and made those values part of our law.
	Today the Government go much further in tasking the commission to drive forward those values and equalities through our society and culture. These are not the actions of an oppressive Government.
	There remain among the excellent proposals in the Bill some causes for real concern, however. The hierarchy of equality has been referred to already, so let me merely nod and pass that matter by. Discrimination in regard to the provision of goods and services will not be outlawed for people of age, nor will there be a public duty to promote age equality. So age is already two points down; it has already suffered twice, and it will suffer again in relation to the matter raised by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow). The definition of a public authority is over-narrow, and only public authorities are obliged to comply with human rights legislation directly. Only public authorities will be subject to the duties that the commission can impose on people.
	Public authorities are very narrowly defined, and that will damage the position of many people. The case mentioned by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam involved a Leonard Cheshire home, and it was decided as long ago as 2002. It was the intention under the Human Rights Act 1998 that an organisation should be regarded a public authority if it was carrying out public functions. That is very straightforward, and a Leonard Cheshire home clearly carries out the functions that a council would otherwise have to provide. However, the court allocated the status of public authority on a very different, rather esoteric and much narrower basis. Ninety per cent. of care homes and 70 per cent. of the domiciliary services in old people's homes are run by private suppliers, and they will not be covered by the Bill because they will be excluded by that definition.
	I know that the Government are aware of this matter, and I know that there is a three-pronged approach to putting it right. The first involves looking for a suitable case, presumably so that the Attorney-General can intervene to advocate going back to the original definition. It is not the Government's fault that there has been no such case, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam seemed to suggest, but we do not know when such a case will arise. The second possibility involves local authorities entering into contracts to protect old people's human rights. That was suggested in the course of the case in 2002, but there is still no guidance to that effect for local authorities. The problem with that solution is that it would be enforceable only by the local authority against the home, and not by an individual against the home. The third possibility would be to include the issue in the discrimination law review.
	This issue will bite harshly on people of age, but, because we are committed to using private suppliers to supply innumerable public services—I make no criticism of that—it will also affect a far wider group of recipients. Examples include the increased use of private finance initiatives, the large-scale voluntary transfer of council houses, the private provision of services by diagnostic and treatment centres, and the privatisation of back-office services in local authorities and of highway maintenance. Many other aspects of our public services are also delivered by private sector organisations, and it is debatable which of them, if any, would qualify as a public authority under that very narrow definition.
	So the Bill will give rights with one hand, and take them away with the other—as a result of transfers from the public sector to the private sector—so long as that narrow definition of a public authority subsists. What, I ask—rhetorically, of course—is there to prevent the inclusion in the Bill of a clause stating that we reaffirm the public functions basis of the definition of a public authority, and that we declare the case of Heather v. Leonard Cheshire Homes to be of no effect? There seems to be no reason why that could not be done. It is a fourth possible solution, and it has the advantage that it could be done now. I invite the Minister to comment on that when she replies to the debate.
	Clause 10, which was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), will require the commission for equality and human rights to work towards community cohesion and to promote good relations across all seven of the equality strands. However, subsection (4) states:
	"In determining what action to take in pursuance of this section the Commission shall have particular regard to the importance of exercising the powers conferred by this Part in relation to groups defined by reference to race, religion or belief."
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) said that the Bill was a taster, and that she relished the prospect of the main course of a single equalities Act in which all equalities will be equal, but I believe that the Bill will entrench a hierarchy of equalities now.
	The inequality contained in clause 10(4) would give a premium to groups defined by reference to race, religion or belief, and it would affect the allocation of differential resources. There has never been a satisfactory explanation for the rationale behind the Equal Opportunities Commission working on only half the budget of the Commission for Racial Equality. As drafted, clause 10(4) is bound to disadvantage all the equality strands that are not defined by reference to race, religion or belief, in the allocation of resources.
	The Bill requires the commission to set its priorities in consultation with the community, but clause 10(4) would effectively remove that right completely and undermine the commission's independence by setting in stone in the Bill something that might be a current political priority but which would remove the commission's freedom of movement. I recognise that the rationale behind clause 10 is that the potential for interracial or inter-faith conflict that exists at the moment is a problem, and I do not want to minimise the need for the commission to promote good relations in those areas. However, I do not believe that they should be singled out and given permanent priority in law, when there are also significant levels of conflict in other areas. People are made very unhappy, they are harassed and even killed by racial and religious strife, but two women a week are killed by a violent partner or former partner. Just under half of all women experience domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking. Forty-eight per cent. of east London gay people suffer from homophobic crime, and 23 per cent. of adults with learning disabilities have experienced physical abuse.
	Let me say gently that there has sometimes been conflict between the sexual orientation and women's rights sectors and some religions and beliefs. Of course, doctrines are a matter for them, but when it comes to the impact of the Bill on the wider community, why should women's equality have a lower priority than the protection of faith? It should not. It should have equal priority, and I suggest that it should be expressed as equal in the Bill. I suggest further that human rights are a useful tool for mediating in situations in which there is a conflict between equal equalities.
	To give priority to a particular strand would be to undermine part of the purpose of the commission. I suggest therefore that clause 10(4) should be amended to provide that the commission should have due regard to the importance of exercising the powers conferred in this part of the Bill in relation to all seven communities defined in subsection (2). That would be fairer, and it would be equal. That is what the Bill is about.

Nadine Dorries: I thank my hon. Friend for informing me of that point.
	I support the Bill's holistic approach in establishing an overarching commission that takes in the functions of the three independent commissions. However, perhaps because I am a northerner, or was a business woman, I am concerned about the finances. The new commission will cost £24 million to establish and a further £70 million a year to run. The hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) said that the Opposition want to starve the commission of funds, but that is not the case. As a business woman, if one of my managers had come to me and said that they had a new process that would take in three existing processes, I would have expected a cost-saving justification for that. Given that taxpayers' money is involved here, it is amazing that this will cost 43 per cent. more to run, and I have not yet seen the justification for that. We know that extra strands will be taken in, but there should also be economy of scale. I take on board the points made about human resources and various other functions within the costings, but it still does not make sense. If one overarching commission is to take on the responsibility of three, with a few additional strands, an additional 43 per cent. cost cannot be justified. I look forward to the Minister's comments on that. I understand the extended scope, but it is hard to make sense of the figures that have been forward. A sensible approach would be for the Minister to look again at the costs and perhaps use that additional funding for additional strands, or put it towards the cost of the single equality Bill, about which the hon. Member for Wallasey also spoke.
	I shall try to be brief so that other hon. Members may speak. I want to draw attention to a parallel between the education White Paper and the Bill. Anyone who has studied the White Paper will, like me, be concerned about over-centralisation. However, the White Paper has the safety net of common sense, which is provided by the involvement of a host of professionals in its delivery, in conjunction with parents, teachers, children and governors. That will result in a natural erring towards common sense, and a natural moving away from bureaucracy. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) said, in the Bill much is centralised in the Minister. One hon. Member referred to the guest house, which may be Christian guest house, the people who might be staying there and the issues that arise from that. I want the Bill to work because it is needed and it needs credibility to do so, but when it is over-centralised, and when such issues arise, they will be given priority.

Nadine Dorries: That does not actually mean that the legislation will not be over-centralised in its administration throughout those regional offices.
	Some who called for the Bill do not have the same agenda as the House or Opposition Members. They will want to use it for their own means and ends. I hope that the Minister will ensure that such people will not be able to do so. If the Bill is too rigid and too politicised it could be exploited by such people. I urge the Government to be wary of over-centralisation.
	I have a genuine query for the Minister. Part 4 of the Bill places a duty on public authorities to promote equality of opportunity between men and women. How will that impact upon political candidate selection for all political parties? I should genuinely like to know whether the legislation affects what is already in place.
	Discrimination is in itself abhorrent. It is unjust, unfair and it should be unlawful. It destroys confidence, blights lives and denies people opportunity. In a civilised society, discrimination in whatever form should simply not exist.
	I am opposed to legislation for the sake of it, but the Bill is necessary and well-intentioned in today's society. We must hope that the Government will ensure that their good intentions are not abused by those who will try to use the Bill to meet their own ends.

Barbara Keeley: That is what I was talking about. I was saying that in many cases now, some of the ethnic minority groupings are doing better than white working-class boys. When we investigate discrimination, we need to look across the piece and try to find reasons for that. That is why the equalities review is such a good move. It will be able to investigate all the social, cultural and economic factors that limit or deny people the opportunities to make the best of their abilities. It is important that we gain that understanding of the long-term cases of disadvantage that need to be addressed in public policy. When I was responsible for education in local government, I was never clear what specifically we could do for those white working-class boys to improve things for them.
	I want to touch on three aspects of the new commission. I want to talk briefly about women and then move on to carers and human rights. The new provisions to prohibit discrimination and to create a general duty to promote gender equality are welcome. The public sector is a major employer of women. Of public sector workers, 64 per cent. are women. In my constituency, the largest employers are the two local authorities, Salford and Wigan, and the NHS.
	We know that the gender gap has closed considerably over the past 30 years. As some of my hon. Friends mentioned earlier, women now earn 83p for every £1 earned by men, compared to only 70p 30 years ago. However, there is still more to be done. I want the pay gap between women and men to be closed even more. Apart from that being the right thing to do, it makes sense for the economy. My hon. Friend the Minister cited figures demonstrating that raising women's skills to the level of men's would add 3 per cent. to our gross domestic product. Although the gender pay gap is only 10 per cent. among full-time staff in the public sector, it is 21 per cent. in the private sector, so there is still much to be done.
	I believe that there are still too few women in senior management positions in the public sector, in which there is a concentration of women in such roles as teaching and social work. When I was a councillor, we appointed our first woman chief executive, but she was one of very few to attain that senior post in the north-west. One of my two local authorities, Wigan, has just appointed a woman chief executive, Joyce Redfearn. That constitutes a step forward in that part of the north-west, but it is still the case that only a fifth of local authorities employ women in such senior positions. The health service is doing a little better: 28 per cent. of its chief executives are women. I hope that the public-sector duty to promote gender equality will help authorities to take steps, in their role as employers, to improve the current position.

Nadine Dorries: As was pointed out to me, the Government have been in power for eight and half years. They have had that time in which to try to improve the position.

Barbara Keeley: I think the hon. Lady would agree that it probably takes more than eight and a half years to work one's way up to becoming chief executive of a local authority. It takes most people a few years to reach the top of an organisation—probably more than just eight years. I think that more responsibility falls on a party that was in government for 18 years.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) pointed out, welcome work is already being done on occupational segregation to find out why men and women are concentrated in different jobs. Work is also being done on female access to what has historically been seen as male jobs. It is important for us to understand concepts such as that of the glass ceiling, of which we have heard so much and which prevents women from making progress, and that of the sticky floor—a new one on me—which stops women from moving up from the jobs that pay least. It is equally important to understand both those concepts.
	I want to say something about how caring affects ability to work. Employers should recognise that their employees are juggling caring responsibilities with work. Having such responsibilities, especially for a child or an adult with a disability—or indeed an elderly relative—affects the ability of both men and women to work. Employment rates for men and, in particular, women carers are likely to be lower than those for other people of the same working age. Seventy per cent. of men between 30 and 44 caring for a disabled son or daughter are in work, while fewer than 50 per cent. of women carers in the same age group are in work. The peak age for caring is between 45 and 64—women may return to caring even if they have been working—and one adult in four in that age group has caring responsibilities. Again, that applies more to women: 27 per cent. will be caring for someone with a long-term health condition between the ages of 45 and 64, compared to 19 per cent. of men.
	For many carers, overall employment rates are lower. The greater the caring commitment, the more likely it is that carers will have to work part time. Given the wider pay gap among part-time workers, that means that carers juggling caring and work suffer double discrimination, and most of them are women.

Alison Seabeck: May I say something about the support given to carers and others who are discriminated against by employers, because of their caring duties or for other reasons? Perhaps my hon. Friend, like me, has been lobbied by the Equal Opportunities Commission, which fears that its powers under section 73 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 are not being transferred to the Bill—specifically, its power to represent people confronted by discrimination of this nature. If so, no doubt she will ask the Minister to respond later.

Barbara Keeley: My hon. Friend must be clairvoyant. I was coming to that point.
	Issues involving parenting, caring and work are complex. They affect many of our constituents, so they should concern us all. A question that is still being asked is whether the duty to promote equality between women and men will ensure that caring responsibilities are recognised by public bodies with duties applying to their employment practices and the way in which they design their services. I understand that the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland deals with caring as a separate strand, and has a positive duty relating to public bodies, including the promotion of equality
	"between persons with dependants and those without".
	Caring is often not even visible to employers. Many carers do not like to ask for time off, or indeed for flexibility, but the Bill will allow them to do so. Many currently feel that caring is not seen as a reason for time off in their workplaces. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck), I hope that the Committee will consider whether the duty to promote equality could be extended, and whether caring responsibilities could become an extra and, perhaps, a particularly important strand of the commission's work.
	It is welcome that the new single statutory commission has human rights in its title. We should celebrate that. With that institutional support, the work on equality and human rights can be linked. As we know, discrimination and lack of equality waste the potential of individuals and represent a loss to our nation, which we can now quantify in terms of GDP.
	In the past 30 years, we have made steady but at times slow progress on reducing inequality and attacking discrimination, although much more progress has been made under Labour Governments than under Conservative Governments. As Labour Members have said, it has been disturbing to hear the views of what is becoming known as the dinosaur tendency. As my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley said, Members should be clear about their terms. I understand that the reason why bibles have been removed from patients' lockers in NHS hospitals is to prevent cross-infection. If a patient in the NHS wants a bible, the idea is that they ask for one. They are then provided with one that has been properly disinfected following use by other patients. Therefore, it has nothing to do with political correctness. That has been quoted twice by Opposition Members. It is rather silly that they do that type of thing. In contrast, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) gave an excellent exposition of the work of Labour's women pioneers over the past century.
	Since 1997, we have abolished section 28 and introduced civil partnerships. Today, many of my hon. Friends have emphasised the importance of ending discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods and services. Like them, I welcome the fact that our Government have accepted amendments to the Bill in the other place which allow the Secretary of State to make regulations that prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. We are indeed glad that there is widespread support for these measures in Parliament and beyond and I add my support to that.
	Looking forward, measures are proposed to outlaw age discrimination in the workplace, and the Women and Work Commission will report early next year. Like many hon. Members, particularly those on the Labour Benches, I welcome the Bill, which is the biggest step forward for the law on equality for many years and creates a body, wherever it is located—I hope that it will be in the north-west—that will integrate the three pillars of equality, diversity and human rights and work to promote good relations.

Celia Barlow: I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing those individuals to the attention of the House. They have done a huge amount to promote equality and, indeed, have worked on the Bill with my hon. Friends.
	I am also delighted to be able to salute the hard work of Lord Alli. As we know, last week in the other place, the Government accepted an amendment to the proposals that would guarantee the right to non-discrimination for a significant group of my constituents. Lord Alli was instrumental in framing an amendment that expresses the continuing desire of our Government to free this country from centuries of discrimination.
	With the inclusion of the amendment outlawing discrimination when providing goods and services to gays and lesbians, the Bill will mean that, as those citizens go about their lives, they will no longer have to suffer the daily, dull, yet remorseless indignities of casual discrimination. It has been many years since the infamous signs "No Irish, No blacks" have appeared in the windows of rooms for rent, as they did in Notting Hill in the late 1950s, but until the Bill becomes law, such a sign expressing the same prejudice against lesbians and gays is perfectly legal.
	We should not be complacent by assuming that such discriminatory acts do not occur in this country today. Recently, two lesbians from Brighton and Hove were refused service in a cafe after a walk along the beautiful South Downs. They were turned away with the words "We don't serve your sort here." Stonewall has documented cases where a newspaper editor has refused to print, on so-called ethical grounds, an advert targeting the gay community to encourage participation in a community-wide social group.
	When the first couples confirm their commitment to each other in civil partnerships next month, they should be able to set out on their lives together enjoying a honeymoon free from the fear of prejudice. That shows the importance of that amendment and of the Bill's swift arrival on to the statute books. For until these measures become law, there will remain no statutory protection against discrimination for Britain's lesbian, gay and bisexual population in terms of goods and services. I support the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner), who has asked the Minister to ensure that all these measures are introduced at the same time.
	I applaud the Bill's far-reaching protection for people of religion. Like the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), I regret that the full force of the legislation has not been extended to older people. I hope that the House will agree that to exclude the gay and lesbian community would have sent a wholly unacceptable message to the country. I take issue with the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne): I have full confidence that the Minister will deal with the issue competently.
	Despite the evidence of growing tolerance and acceptance of lesbian and gay relationships by mainstream society, we must not become complacent. We must not fool ourselves into thinking that homophobic bigotry is a spent force in our society, for it is not. The murder of a young man, Jody Dobrowski, was motivated by a hatred of gay people. Sadly, that is not a tale from a century ago; it occurred in this city, this year. It was a singularly horrific occurrence that dominated the country's headlines.
	For many of our nation's 3.4 million lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, however, the petty humiliation and perhaps more subtle discrimination that occurs almost daily has greatest effect on their ability fully to enjoy the benefits of life in modern Britain, for example, joining a social or sports club. Many of my colleagues and I would not think twice before inquiring about special family discounts for clubs and societies; but, for gay and lesbian couples, those situations can become a time of embarrassment and even humiliation. Those daily events, which go almost unnoticed to most of us, can often be painful reminders to others that society is unwelcoming and that those involved are perceived as outsiders.
	I am mindful that many of my colleagues want to speak, so I shall briefly quote the comments that Lord Alli made on this very subject in the other place:
	"lesbians and gay men are routinely insulted by being refused double rooms in hotels and guest houses. Such discrimination is already rightly unlawful, should hotel proprietors refuse rooms to black and Asian couples. That such discrimination is still lawful can only reinforce discrimination against the lesbian and gay community in wider society."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 October 2005; Vol. 674, c. 867.]
	The amendment to the Bill that protects lesbian, gay and bisexual people from discrimination for goods and services will give the Government an enabling power to bring such protection to the statute books. I should be grateful if the Minister would give an assurance today that that will be done with swift efficiency to reflect the Government's undoubted desire for greater equality in modern Britain. There is no reason why that could not happen virtually immediately, so I urge the Minister not to allow the measures to get bogged down in undue consultation and bureaucracy.
	I note, as did the Equal Opportunities Commission, that transgender people are not covered by the Bill. I echo the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) in saying that I hope that the Minister will try to rectify the omission and assure us that anti-discrimination measures will be offered to the transgender community, too. If such people were not covered, it would send an excluding and discriminatory message. We shall need to support that group in keeping to the intention of the legislation.
	Ensuring that there is not discrimination is the key to the Bill's success. The argument for establishing a framework for protection from discrimination has been won, and my constituents have shown consistent support for such measures. I congratulate the Government on bringing these reasoned and progressive measures before the House and on accepting the amendment that will offer anti-discrimination measures to the lesbian and gay community.

Meg Hillier: One consequence of speaking at this point in the debate is that my comments will necessarily be briefer than I had originally intended, as many Members have eloquently covered many of the points I hoped to make. I stress, however, that my comments will be no less heartfelt for that.
	I want to begin by picking up on some of the points made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing). She said that she regretted the fact that, 30 years after the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, we are still debating equality issues in this House. That is a very important point, and it is slightly depressing to think that I was not born when the Race Relations Act 1965 was enacted, and that I was at primary school when the 1975 Act was enacted. Here I am, now a mother myself, seeing this very important Bill come through—a Bill that means a great deal to me personally, and to my constituents, friends and family. It will make a big difference to the future focus of our society. It will enshrine in law, in a single Equality Act, all the things that decent, right-thinking human beings want in terms of how their fellow human beings should be treated.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) eloquently outlined the issues relating to the argument for a single Equality Bill, so I will not go into those, but I want to pick up on the comments of the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), who talked about Britishness. He should come to Hackney, South and Shoreditch, where he would see Britishness manifested in a way that he would not recognise, but which my constituents embrace enthusiastically. Some 54 people attended my last surgery, a week ago. Many of them came to see me about their immigration status and its progress through the Home Office. As commonly happens during surgeries and when I knock on doors in my constituency, a number of them talked to me enthusiastically about becoming British citizens, especially those who had just received leave to remain. Be they from Ghana, Nigeria, Somalia or eastern Europe, many such people are keen to be British. That does not chime with the "Britishness" examples given by the hon. Member for Castle Point.
	Although other Members have highlighted the Government's achievements in this area, it is worth reminding ourselves, at the tail-end of this debate, of some of them. Only recently have civil partnerships been put on the statute book, thereby providing such people with equal security within the law. Our having legislated for the full civil rights of disabled people is an issue close to me personally. I am a carer for a disabled adult, and I see the massive difference that such legislation has made to her. For the first time in her life, last Christmas she was able to get on a bus in a wheelchair, thanks to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 coming into force. Those who talk nostalgically about London buses, or who criticise drop-kerbs and other "petty" changes that they do not take seriously, should remember that these changes make a daily difference to people's lives. That is what such legislation has meant, and we will see other such examples in this single Equality Bill.
	I want to talk briefly about some issues that are particularly important to my constituents. Measures in train to outlaw age discrimination in the workplace are a very welcome development. In an intervention, I highlighted the fact that there are some 250,000 people in London aged over 50 who are willing, able and qualified to work, but who are not in employment. That represents the biggest pool of underused skills and experience available to the London economy, so it is vital that we progress the legislation as fast as possible.
	Another major concern in my constituency is the pay gap between men and women, which other hon. Members have outlined eloquently. Many of my constituents in Hackney, South and Shoreditch work in low-paid, manual or service jobs, some of which, particularly in the caring professions, are dominated by women, as is the case nationally. The Women and Work Commission, which is due to report next year, will make an important contribution to that debate. It will, I hope, make a huge difference to my constituents, although I accept that we have a mountain to climb. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equality for her long-standing campaign on that issue.
	The equalities review is important. Hackney has been one of the poorest boroughs in London for more than 100 years. The people may change, but some of the problems, discrimination and inequalities that they face remain the same. I highlighted a case in an intervention, but it bears repeating as it is just one example of many that I could cite in my constituency. Why are Africans who come to this country, particularly from west Africa—who are highly qualified, often with second or even third degrees—under-employed or even unemployed? Surely, we have learned lessons from the people who arrived in our country and faced discrimination in the 1950s and 1960s and, indeed both before and since then. I look forward to the outcome of the review chaired by Trevor Phillips. I hope that we will begin to see a difference and perhaps make a step change in future legislation. The discrimination law review will also lead to improvements.

John Bercow: The hon. Lady has made a powerful point, but does she not accept that probably tens of thousands of asylum seekers are scientists, engineers, doctors and dentists, but are prevented from using their skills to earn a living and benefit the country?

Hywel Williams: Plaid Cymru and the Scottish national party welcome the Bill with some reservations, but we have been great supporters of the provisions on race. As some hon. Members know, my predecessor was a great supporter of disability legislation. We are equally enthusiastic about the provisions on religion, sexual orientation and particularly age. In that regard I have in mind the Bill going through another place to establish a commissioner for older people in Wales. I hope that we in Wales have a progressive record on such matters.
	We welcome the intention to address equality issues in an integrated way, bringing in uniformity and equality and, as the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) said, evening up standards and seeking equality of provision. Equality law is contained in many Acts. The Stonewall brief for this debate notes that there are equality issues in 35 Acts, 52 statutory instruments, 13 codes of practice and 16 EU directives. Sooner, I hope, rather than later, we will move to a single equality Act in respect of the matters addressed in the Bill. For that reason we welcome the advent of the equality review and hope it will quickly lead to legislation.
	As I said, we have at least four particular concerns—first, the nature of the Welsh and Scottish bodies to be set up by the commission; secondly, the reporting and accountability of those Welsh and Scottish committees to the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament; thirdly, the arrangements in respect of the commissioners working in Wales for children and for older people, and the relationship between them and the commission; and, fourthly, particularly in the case of Wales and perhaps also Scotland, matters relating to indigenous languages—in my case, the Welsh language.
	The commission will set up a Welsh committee. We welcome the fact that it will be a decision-making committee. As schedule 1 notes, it will have real power, and I hope it will also have the money to make that power work for it. It will advise the National Assembly for Wales and report to the Assembly, and similarly in Scotland. The commission member for Wales will be appointed with the consent of the National Assembly for Wales, and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will have to consult the National Assembly for Wales on some of the codes of practice. All these provisions are to be welcomed.
	I refer the Minister to paragraphs 30(1)(a) and 30(2)(a) of schedule 1, relating to advice to the devolved Governments as regards enactments and changes in law that affect Wales only. There are similar provisions affecting Scotland only. I point out that the legislative position in Wales is not the same as it is in Scotland—at present at least. Will the Minister tell me in what circumstances the advisory functions would be carried out in Wales for matters that affect Wales only?
	How will the children's commissioners in England, Scotland and, in particular, Wales compliment the work of the new commission and the new commissioner in Wales? I understand that the Government want to agree memorandums of understanding to ensure joined-up working. When will those memorandums of understanding be agreed and what priority will be given to them? In Wales, will the memoranda of understanding be drawn up with the Wales committee of the new commission or with the commission itself? Such detailed matters will be discussed in Committee or on Report, I presume.

Hywel Williams: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who has anticipated my next remarks. Another unique point about Wales is that we will have a commissioner for older people, and similar considerations to those that I have discussed will apply to how the commission works with them.
	The last report that I received indicates that the Children's Commissioner for Wales has taken 600 cases, which represents a great amount of work and a great amount of experience. I seek an assurance that the commission will be able to take account of the experience that the Children's Commissioner for Wales has built up.
	Finally, I shall turn to Welsh language issues, which the Bill does not address—probably rightly. Welsh language equality issues have not generally been seen as equality issues, although they have been seen in lots of other ways, but there is some profit to be had in considering those points from a rights-based standpoint. It is useful for us to examine how the commission will work in Wales in respect of the Welsh language, because there is currently such confusion about the role of the Welsh Language Board, the nature and timing of any change to its functions, which will be brought into Welsh Assembly Government, and the regulatory function of the new office of the dyfarnwr—the adjudicator—which will retain the residual statutory powers of the Welsh Language Board to review Welsh language schemes.
	I have drawn those matters to the Minister's attention because the Welsh Language Act 1993 states that Welsh and English are to be treated on the basis of equality, which is the magic word. That provision is subject to the qualification that equality is to be applied only where it is reasonable, appropriate and practical, so it is not total equality. The Bill discusses equality, but it does not address language equality in Wales, although it might have done so. Perhaps future legislation will address the matter, because if the Wales Bill, which will come before this House, is enacted, it will allow the Welsh Assembly to pass legislation or Orders in Council.
	As I have said, it is unsurprising that Welsh language issues have not been addressed on a rights basis in the past. In some ways, Welsh is not a minority language—it has legal status and such languages are referred to elsewhere as proper languages. It is not an equal language or the majority language, but it is the proper language for Wales, which is similar to some of the languages used on the Iberian peninsula.
	In closing, I shall raise the practical question of providing goods, facilities and services. Provision through the medium of Welsh has not been addressed properly in the past, which has led to some people who want goods, facilities and services through the medium of Welsh not being able to access them. That matter must be addressed, perhaps not in this Bill, but certainly in any further legislation that the Welsh Assembly Government or the Welsh Assembly might wish to pass in the future.

Tim Boswell: It is pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) because, as I think that he is aware, my wife is also from the Principality, although she does not speak Welsh. His remarks reminded me of the historical perspective. We are now almost neutral as to people's linguistic choice, but those in the Principality have felt, and occasionally were, oppressed on account of their nationality. Perhaps it is a sign of where we need to be getting that that discrimination would generally be unthinkable nowadays.
	This has been an interesting and sometimes rather revealing debate. Upwards of 20 Back Benchers have spoken, and it would probably be invidious of me to single any of them out. The Minister might like to refer to some Labour Members. On my side, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), who is an expert in this area. During the previous Second Reading debate he spoke from the Front Bench but now speaks from the Back Benches. Conversely, on that occasion I spoke from the Back Benches, and now here I am on the Front Bench. I am particularly grateful to the neophytes—my hon. Friends the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries), for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) and for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller). They all made effective and balanced contributions, although some were heard somewhat at a distance and reported to me. Generally it has been a remarkably broad and useful debate—for the Ministers also, I hope.
	For the avoidance of any doubt, I repeat that Conservatives welcome the Bill. I do not, on the whole, pursue policies of inconsistency. Having re-read my Second Reading speech from the Back Benches on 5 April, I do not resile from a word of it. I believe that the Bill and the discussion around it is an important signal of intent as regards the attitudes of this place towards minorities.

Andrew Turner: My hon. Friend says that business needs to line up alongside the statutory organisations in supporting equality. Does not he find it surprising that the civil service continues to discriminate on the basis of age for recruitment and retirement when many businesses have long ceased to do that?

Tim Boswell: No, I will not. I cannot be responsible for my hon. Friends, let alone for Labour Members, but we will all do our best. Let us be straight about this; let us find out what is involved and let us understand that if the commission encourages or condones such attitudes, it will devalue its own work. That is not something that I want it to do.
	I believe that the great majority of people in this country want to see fairness of treatment and respect for the rights of others as well as of themselves. I also believe that the moral centre of this country is somewhere above the lowest level of the comment in the tabloid newspapers, which consistently underestimate people's decency. They are wrong to do that.
	It has been observed that there is unfinished business in other parts of the Bill. There is much more work to be done on producing a single concept, as a result of the gradual, incremental way in which the law on disability and other discrimination has come together. That is why I welcome the review, and the Minister's readiness to open it to outside engagement. There will undoubtedly be a need for a new, single equality Act, but it is better to take a little more time to get that right. I emphasise to the Minister the importance not only of legal form but of equality of redress, so that all the different parts of the Bill work to ensure that people who have a problem can get it raised. The commission will have a role to play in that regard. The relationship with human rights was mentioned in relation to publicly financed private institutions and service providers such as care homes. Many other detailed points were raised, but I do not have time to rehearse them now.
	As for the effects of the Bill, the worst possible scenario would be for the Government to believe that the establishment of the commission were an end in itself—I am not saying that they do—or some kind of sophisticated displacement activity, rather than the means to address real inequality of opportunity in society. I very much welcome the review under Trevor Phillips. Members on both sides of the House have rightly referred to the continuing gender pay gap, and to the engagement of disabled people and ethnic minorities in employment. These issues will not go away, and we should talk about them. We should not blame the equality bodies because perfection has not been achieved; we should continue to work towards reducing the gaps.
	France was mentioned earlier, and all these issues should be viewed without complacency or schadenfreude by Labour Members. A good Parliament should be alert to changing social conditions and should try to steer them in the right direction. That is why it is important that the commission should have a role involving monitoring and speaking out. It is, incidentally, possible to cut the costs of monitoring by outsourcing some of those tasks to academia, for example. They do not all have to be done in- house. When Trevor Phillips gets up and expresses his extremely important and challenging views on ethnic inclusion in the United Kingdom, it is right that such people, who take the lead on these issues, should be able to speak out and open up the debate, even if we do not agree with their every last word. That forms part of the national debate. It is not necessarily an expensive activity and I hope that the commission will be able to play a part in it.
	Today's debate has shown that we all have a duty to have regard to the condition of the people, and a special duty towards those who are less well placed to voice their concerns. Frankly, most of us will get our own way, one way or another, but there are plenty of people who will not. In our own interests as much as those of anyone else, we need to open our society to the potential of all our citizens, and to remove any roadblocks to their progress and welfare, both as individuals and as groups of individuals. The Bill and the commission will stand or fall on whether they really help to achieve those shared objectives. I support the Bill because I expect and hope that it will help—not on its own, but over time and with the good will of the people—to achieve some of those goals for us.

Anne McGuire: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who on these issues always makes a thoughtful contribution to the House. I also thank the many hon. Members who have contributed to today's debate, including my hon. Friends the Members for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber), for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan), for Erewash (Liz Blackman)—these quaint English names are sometimes beyond my good Scot's tongue—for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) and for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird). I also congratulate the many new Members who have contributed to today's debate, including my hon. Friends the Members for Worsley (Barbara Keeley), for Tooting (Mr. Khan), for Hove (Ms Barlow) and for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), and those on the Opposition Benches.
	I also thank the official Opposition for their support for the Bill, the Liberal Democrats, the Democratic Unionists—who I think support the Bill—and Plaid Cymru, who I trust speak for all the nationalists in the House. We are in the gratifying situation that on this day in 2005 we have almost unanimous agreement on some of the major equality issues. That is to be applauded, because some of us remember the time before the Race Relations Act 1976, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the equal opportunities legislation, when there was not always consensus in the House on how to tackle discrimination.
	This is an ambitious Bill, as many contributors to the debate today have said, and we have had a wide-ranging and supportive debate that appropriately reflects the Bill's objectives and underlines how it will affect the lives of so many diverse individuals and groups represented in our communities. Some of the examples that have been raised today are indicative of that. I am grateful for the points that have been made and I shall come to them in a moment.
	The Bill is the latest step in the development of our equality and human rights framework. It builds on sound legislative changes that have already been made to challenge race discrimination in public bodies, to better protect people at work from discrimination and to strengthen the rights of disabled people when accessing services and the public sector. It builds on the excellent work done by the three existing equality commissions and the many other organisations working to make Britain a better place for all. As the Minister with responsibility for disabled people, I congratulate and recognise the fact that the Disability Rights Commission is five years old this year. Ten or 15 years ago disabled people throughout the United Kingdom never thought it possible that we would have such a commission to champion their cause and to challenge on their behalf.
	The law has moved on, with regulations tackling workplace discrimination on grounds of religion and belief, and sexual orientation. There will soon be similar regulations to tackle age discrimination. But there are no institutions in place to enforce those regulations. There is no institution providing advice or promoting human rights. So the time is right for a single commission for equality and human rights, ensuring greater impact, greater relevance, greater ease of access and greater coherence.
	The Bill also extends the legislation against discrimination on the grounds of a person's religion or belief. For the first time, it provides protection and reassurance for many in the provision of goods, facilities and services and other important areas.
	Part 2 corrects an anomaly in the law. Through developments under the Race Relations Act, Jews and Sikhs are already protected against discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services, the management and disposal of premises and the provision of education—protection that is not available to any other faith or belief. The Bill deals with that anomaly.
	It is generally accepted that the Bill has been improved by the addition of part 3, which contains the power to make regulations prohibiting discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. It is an example of the Government's response to support in Parliament and elsewhere. We are honouring our long-standing commitment to gender equality by introducing the most significant measure in 30 years in the form of a new public duty.
	The Bill is not intended to do everything, but it forms part of our overall strategy for action on equality. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey who said, using a telling phrase, that this was the starter before the main course. Work is continuing on the other two prongs. The equality review is considering the underlying causes of continuing inequalities, while the discrimination law review is considering the development of a more consistent and coherent legal framework throughout discrimination law. I ask Members who may be disappointed by some of the perceived gaps in the Bill to bear in mind the importance of getting changes right before including them in legislation.
	Opposition Members in particular mentioned cost. The £70 million budget planned for the commission represents a 43 per cent. increase on the existing commissions' budgets, but it also reflects an objective assessment of what the CEHR will need, based on work to identify its activities and services and the resources required to support them. Others raised the issue of regional presences. One reason for our wish to fund the commission properly is the need to ensure that there is a strong regional presence. Combining the various bodies will produce efficiency savings, but they will be ploughed into front-line services. There will not be an open-ended cheque book which no one will ever scrutinise. The budget is specifically for the work that the House will ask the commission to do, and, as I have said, any savings will be ploughed back into the front line.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No.83A (6)(Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Equality Bill [Lords]:
	Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
	Proceedings in Standing Committee
	2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 8th December.
	3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced.
	6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further message from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Mr. Dhanda.]
	The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 42.

Queen's recommendation having been signified—
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)(Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Equality Bill [Lords] it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
	(1) expenditure incurred under the Act by the Secretary of State, and
	(2) any increase attributable to the Act in sums payable out of money so provided
	under another enactment.—[Mr. Dhanda.]
	Question agreed to.

Linda Gilroy: My constituency is strategically located at the centre of the far south-west on the border of Devon and Cornwall. Plymouth is the south-west region's second city, with a population of 240,000 people. In my previous debate on urban renaissance in Plymouth, I spoke of our plans to accommodate—indeed, to welcome—substantial population growth over the next 20 years, taking us to 300,000 or even 350,000 people. Such growth, matched by increased economic activity and housing provision, will allow Plymouth to achieve a level of performance and quality of life appropriate to its size. It will also play a key part in addressing local and regional disparities in our economy and standing of living. Disparities between the east and west ends of our region are the greatest of any region in England. Plymouth recognises the need for a rapid improvement in transport performance in this context.
	The city council has submitted a bid for intervention funding from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to meet support from a partner authority for further acceleration of its performance improvement. Evidence of Plymouth's commitment to transport issues and its ability to deliver when investment is available includes the A386 major transport scheme, an impressive performance on road safety—Plymouth has already reached the national 2010 targets for accident reduction and recently published a child road safety audit to indicate how further improvements can be made—and the Morice Town home zone, which is in the constituency my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck) and is a national example for reducing crime, road accidents and through traffic.
	Given good project management and the success of the partnering contract with the main contractor, the city council is meeting its targets for the delivery of the A386 major scheme within budget and on time. The council has recommended to the Department for Transport additional complementary elements to the major scheme to deliver stretched outcomes without increasing the funding contribution from the DFT of £11.25 million. Although the city council understands that the Department for Transport is not currently in a position to confirm whether savings from the capital programme can be released to fund additional elements, it hopes that the DFT will be able to make a positive response to its recommendation at the earliest opportunity.
	Plymouth's second local transport plan focussed on increasing bus patronage, which has been declining faster than national levels in recent years. A number of projects that are nearing completion should assist in building bus patronage. The investment to achieve that has been welcome, and I hope the Minister will agree that good use is being made of it. Nevertheless, I point out that Plymouth received lower transport allocations than other cities of similar size under the first local transport plan, when our aspirations were perhaps a little lower than they are now. Although our performance two years ago was poor, the council has now placed transport high on the city's agenda, and the annual performance score has risen from a low of 42 per cent. to 64 per cent. now.
	Plymouth has not submitted a bid for this round of the transport innovation funding, as its strategy needs to be developed further in that respect, particularly to explore opportunities to work jointly with its neighbours in the sub-region, but the Government can expect a major scheme bid to be identified in the second LTP submission next March and further funding bids through both the transport innovation fund and other domestic and European funding streams, supported by increasing private sector involvement. It is vital that central Government are prepared to increase their investment in transport infrastructure for Plymouth to enable sustainable economic and housing growth in the far south-west and to send a clear message of confidence to the market.
	I now to turn to the importance of transport links and connectivity to the rest of the UK. Research commissioned by SWERDA—the South West of England Regional Development Agency—from the university of the West of England and Bath university has shown that increased journey times and journey costs, coupled with the isolation from complementary businesses, causes productivity to reduce by as much as 4 per cent. per hour, compared with businesses located in the south-east, owing to added journey times from London. A normal road journey from Plymouth to London takes four hours 15 minutes, and the journey from further down in Cornwall in Penzance takes a good two hours more.
	Following announcements made in 2001 on the combined ODPM and Department of Trade and Industry approach to regional policy, a consultation was launched at the time of the 2004 pre-Budget report called "Devolving Decision Making." It gave a commitment to a public service agreement target to
	"make sustainable improvements in the economic performance of all English Regions and over the long term to reduce the persistent gap in growth rates between the regions, defining measures to improve performance and reporting progress against these measures by 2006".
	The consultation on funding allocations comprises transport, housing and economic development funding streams, and the Government are requesting advice by the end of July 2006.
	I know that the regional assembly and the regional development agency are working on the regional spatial and economic strategies. They must achieve a challenging balancing act if they are to ensure that their priorities for investment tackle congestion on road and rail and resolve bottlenecks so that our economy performs in a way that reduces the economic disparities that I have mentioned.
	I do not intend to try to put before the Minister the content of the advice on transport that is emerging from the process. My goal tonight is to give him and his colleagues a picture of the critical importance of recognising the needs of Plymouth, Devon and Cornwall and the scale of the challenge facing businesses, planners and public services. I also want to explain why such issues have been—and remain—at the top of the agenda for business organisations such as the Devon and Cornwall business council and the Plymouth chamber of commerce for as long as I can remember. I shall consider each of the important land-based transport modes, some current challenges and the light that they cast on the importance of the decisions that lie ahead.
	On roads, the Minister will know of the disappointment about the decision to prioritise investment on dualling the A303-A358 instead of the A303 west of Ilminster through to Exeter. Ensuring that there is resilience and reliability by developing two fully strategic arteries to address the challenges for the west of Devon, Plymouth and Cornwall could be properly achieved only by dualling the A303 to Exeter. I suspect that the Secretary of State was unwilling to back the overwhelming wishes of the Devon and Cornwall business community because only a slender majority of the assembly was in favour. There was a strategic failure to recognise the importance of reliable road travel when addressing regional disparities. I am sorry to criticise a body that I believe strives on most occasions to fulfil a strategic role well through what is an important and increasingly indispensable job. The decision enhances the position of Taunton and the surrounding areas, which already have comparatively good connectivity by rail and road outside the region, but does little to address the productivity deficit to which I referred earlier.
	The past six to nine months have demonstrated clearly why the decision was bad. Roadworks on the M5, the A38 and the A303 at Marsh have caused delays and increased journey times, which has caused considerable frustration and concern to people and businesses in Devon and Cornwall. The quality of stakeholder consultation has been poor. The time scale of the four-mile works on the A38 around Buckfastleigh, for which no night-time work is planned, means that there will be a 26-week period during which the carriageway will be restricted, which has caused particular concern. I know that DCBC and Plymouth chamber of commerce have made robust representations about that. I hope that the Minister will consider whether night-time work could be allowed after the completion of a bridge section—that section is adjacent to a settlement, so we all understand that it deserves consideration—and especially before the 2006 tourist season begins. I would welcome him taking an interest in ensuring that future consultation is of a better quality, especially in the light of what I am about to say about our rail services in the near term.
	Road investment to remove bottlenecks is important and welcome, but there is worry that the overall pot of money proposed for the south-west will not be enough, especially if the enhancement of the A303 by tunnelling at Stonehenge, which will be an expensive project, must paid for from that pot. I repeat a plea that I made earlier this year: we must ensure that that investment is taken from national resources because the work will enhance a site of national, and indeed international, importance. As I have said, the consultation on funding allocations is requested by the end of January 2006. If we cannot have a true second arterial route opened up to the west of Devon and Cornwall, issues relating to our rail and air services will become even more critical.

Linda Gilroy: I certainly welcome my hon. Friend's move to ensure that the Mayor is fully aware of that. The Minister knows well our concerns about rail; many Members have made robust representations. Viewing our transport issues across the piece is absolutely essential against the background of what I have just been saying about roads. He has certainly heard our concerns about how Crossrail could disrupt our hard-won three-hour journey to Plymouth, which would of course also impact on services beyond. Positive consideration of the regional assembly's petition for a full impact assessment is vital. I also believe that there is to be disruption to the Waterloo to Exeter service. Will the Minister ensure that any journey delays arising from that do not clash with the period of work on Crossrail?
	The importance that Plymouth attaches to the three-hour journey—remembering the productivity issues that I mentioned earlier—must be recognised. The document for the renewal of the Greater Western rail franchise ought to specify more than one three- hour journey per day to and from London Paddington and the preservation of our sleeper service to Plymouth and Cornwall.

Derek Twigg: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) on securing this important Adjournment debate on the transport needs and priorities in the far south-west. I listened very carefully to what she said.
	This Government are committed to sustained long-term investment to improve local transport as a key element of their 10-year plan for transport. We announced in December 2000 that £8.4 billion would be available to implement local transport plans across England over the following five years. We also indicated that the four transport authorities in the far south-west would receive more than £88.8 million for integrated transport and maintenance measures in their first LTPs. In addition to this figure, we provided more than £15 million in reward funding and supplementary bids.
	In our White Paper entitled "The Future of Transport—A Network for 2030", which was published last year, we confirmed our commitment to continue this high investment in all forms of transport. The planning guidelines published for the five years of the second LTPs maintain these high levels of investment. Subject to the results of the consultation and the final assessments of the far south-west authorities' second LTPs, we plan to make available similar levels of investment— nearly £99 million over the next five years. Of course, if the LTPs are assessed as among the best in the country, that figure could increase significantly.
	LTPs will address the very real needs of people in the far south-west. The focus will be on our shared priorities, which have been agreed with our partners in local government. There are four main areas for LTPs to address. First, they will tackle congestion, which costs us all in lost time and pollution. Secondly, they will aim to improve people's access to the jobs and services that they need for day-to-day living. Thirdly, they will continue the excellent work undertaken in the past five years to improve road safety. Plymouth city council, for example, has achieved a 48 per cent. reduction in serious or fatal child casualties over the life of the first LTP. Finally, LTPs will aim to improve air quality by working with other stakeholders to remove the air quality management areas that have been declared.
	Transport authorities are now working up final plans to take account of lessons learned, and planning for the next five years. The Department is working closely with authorities across a range of topics, and advising, where necessary, on improving delivery against targets. Final LTPs will be presented to the Government in March next year.
	LTPs have also provided a financial mechanism for delivering major schemes in the far south-west that cost more than £5 million. Of the four schemes—including Highways Agency schemes—currently under construction, the Plymouth one is a major public transport scheme. It includes a park-and-ride facility, public transport prioritisation and re-alignment of the A386 to allow increasing of the runway end safety area at Plymouth airport and conformity with Civil Aviation Authority regulations. Initially, this scheme had provisional approval to spend £5 million, but the Government approved a cost increase to £11.25 million, as the scheme still provided excellent value for money. I am pleased that the authority has brought the project to completion with savings on the original budget, and I congratulate it on that achievement.
	In Devon, construction began on the Barnstaple bypass in February 2005. The scheme is partly funded by Devon county council but the majority of resources—nearly £38 million—come from central Government funds. Two further schemes in Cornwall have received provisional approval for more than £37 million—the A39 Camelford distributor road and the A391 St. Austell to A30 link road. Work has begun on the Highways Agency scheme to replace the single carriageway A30 trunk road between the Bodmin bypass and the Indian Queens bypass with a new dual carriageway at a cost of £93 million. It is planned to open the road in summer 2007.
	Work has also commenced on the improvement at Merrymeet, which will open in April 2007. The public inquiry into the Dobwalls improvement will open in January next year. That, too, is evidence of a genuine commitment by the Government to address local congestion points in the region. Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly are designated objective 1 funding areas, and have thus benefited from significant investment in transport. Schemes such as the double tracking of the main rail line between Probus and Burngullow and improvements at Newquay airport to increase passenger handling capacity have increased opportunities in the region. Authorities in the far south-west have been successful in bidding for funds from other central funding sources. Recently, support has been announced for more than £2 million of kick-start bids in that part of the region. In the past five years, nearly £5.1 million has been awarded from the urban and rural bus challenge funds. In addition, I recently announced that £1.5 million would part-fund work to turn Exeter into one of six cycling demonstration towns.
	My hon. Friend will recall the announcement on the second strategic road route to the south-west by the Secretary of State in November last year. The decision was made to improve in due course the A358 so that it would provide that route in conjunction with the A303. The route was chosen on the grounds of value for money and the lowest impact on the environment. The process has now been handed over to the region to decide how the route fits with other priorities. The world heritage site at Stonehenge, which my hon. Friend mentioned, is recognised by the Government as extremely important. However, due to a substantial increase in the cost of the proposed Stonehenge tunnel, we have deferred a decision on the inspector's report and recommendations on the draft scheme orders. Instead, a detailed review of scheme options is being carried out. There will be a full public consultation early in the new year before the steering group puts its recommendations to the Government by summer 2006. We do not know what will emerge from the review and what the scheme will cost. It is not possible to say how it will impact on the regional funding allocation for the south-west at this stage.